• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Who is SAGES?
    • SAGES Mission Statement
    • Advocacy
    • Strategic Plan, 2020-2023
    • Committees
      • Request to Join a SAGES Committee
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Full Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Donate to the SAGES Foundation
    • SAGES Store
    • Awards
      • George Berci Award
      • Pioneer in Surgical Endoscopy
      • Excellence In Clinical Care
      • International Ambassador
      • IRCAD Visiting Fellowship
      • Social Justice and Health Equity
      • Excellence in Community Surgery
      • Distinguished Service
      • Early Career Researcher
      • Researcher in Training
      • Jeff Ponsky Master Educator
      • Excellence in Medical Leadership
      • Barbara Berci Memorial Award
      • Brandeis Scholarship
      • Advocacy Summit
      • RAFT Annual Meeting Abstract Contest and Awards
    • “Unofficial” Logo Products
  • Meetings
    • NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2024 Scientific Session Call For Abstracts
      • 2024 Emerging Technology Call For Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • Industry
      • Advertising Opportunities
      • Exhibit Opportunities
      • Sponsorship Opportunities
    • Future Meetings
    • Related Meetings Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Applications
      • Active Membership
      • Affiliate Membership
      • Associate Active Membership
      • Candidate Membership
      • International Membership
      • Medical Student Membership
    • Member News
      • Member Spotlight
      • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find a SAGES Member
  • Publications
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • SCOPE – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Annoucements
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • OpiVoid.org
    • SAGES.TV Video Library
    • Safe Cholecystectomy Program
      • Safe Cholecystectomy Didactic Modules
    • Masters Program
      • SAGES Facebook Program Collaboratives
      • Acute Care Surgery
      • Bariatric
      • Biliary
      • Colorectal
      • Flexible Endoscopy (upper or lower)
      • Foregut
      • Hernia
      • Robotics
    • Educational Opportunities
    • HPB/Solid Organ Program
    • Courses for Residents
      • Advanced Courses
      • Basic Courses
    • Fellows Career Development Course
    • Robotics Fellows Course
    • MIS Fellows Course
    • Facebook Livestreams
    • Free Webinars For Residents
    • SMART Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video
    • SAGES Top 21 MIS Procedures
    • SAGES Pearls
    • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES Tips & Tricks of the Top 21
  • Opportunities
    • NEW-Area of Concentrated Training Seal (ACT)-Advanced Flexible Endoscopy
    • SAGES Fellowship Certification for Advanced GI MIS and Comprehensive Flexible Endoscopy
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • SAGES Research Opportunities
    • Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery
    • Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery
    • Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy
    • Job Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
  • OWLS
  • Log In

Tumor ablation using 3-dimensional electromagnetic guided ultrasound versus standard ultrasound in a porcine model

B Krasnick1, D Sindram2, K Simo3, R Goss4, J Bharadwaj4, K Howk4, K Herdina4, C Hammill1. 1Washington University, St. Louis, MO, Department of Surgery, 2Novant Health, Winston-Salem, NC, Department of Surgery, 3Pro Medica Physicians, Toledo, OH, Department of Surgery, 4Medtronic, Boulder, CO

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the placement of ablation needles using 3-dimensional electromagnetic guided ultrasound to standard ultrasound guidance in both laparoscopic and open surgery.  Endpoints for this study included targeting accuracy and number of required needle withdrawals and reorientations. 

Methods: Using a porcine model, 1.2 x 5 mm fiducial markers were placed approximately 2.0 cm (± 1.0 cm) into the kidney and liver to represent tumors. Navigation and identification of target sites was achieved using standard ultrasound (standard) or with guided ultrasound (guided). Intra-procedural observations during each needle placement and ablation procedure as well as the number of needle placement attempts per target were recorded. Three board certified general surgeons (2 animals per physician) performed the navigation and ablation procedures. After completion of the navigation and ablation procedures, necropsy was performed. The liver and kidneys were removed in toto for gross examination. The position of the ablation zones relative to the fiducial markers was recorded. 

Results:  A total of 48 navigation and ablation procedures were performed across the 6 animals (24 standard and 24 guided). Each animal received 4 laparoscopic (2 liver and 2 kidney), followed by 4 open (2 liver and 2 kidney) navigation and ablation procedures.The guided ablations required 50% fewer attempts to successfully target the marker (Table). The standard ablations required an average of 2.4 attempts to successfully place the needle while the guided required only 1.2 attempts. There was not a significant difference between the groups accuracy with respect to finding the marker (95.8% guided vs. 91.7% standard) or targeting accuracy, determined by locating the marker within the ablation zone, (91.3% guided vs. 95.4% standard).

Conclusion: The number of attempts needed to accurately target the lesion was significantly less with guided than with standard ultrasound, with equivalent targeting results. These findings suggest the guided ultrasound can potentially reduce complications during ablation procedures.

Method Location Average Number of Passes to Target Ablation Site
Guided US Standard US Ratio: Standard/Guided
Lap Kidney 1.5 4.5 3.0
Liver 1.2 2.5 2.1
Method Average 1.3 3.5 2.6
Open Liver 1.0 1.2 1.2
Kidney 1.2 1.3 1.1
Method Average 1.1 1.3 1.2
Procedural Average 1.2 2.4 2.0
US= Ultrasound

 

 


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 91024

Program Number: ET010

Presentation Session: Emerging Technology Session (Non CME)

Presentation Type: Podium

58

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • WhatsApp
  • Reddit

Related

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064
1-310-437-0544
[email protected]
Monday - Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • TikTok

Important Links

SAGES 2024 Meeting Information

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

 

  • taTME Study Info
  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2023 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons