Sara C. Chaker BS, Ya-Ching Hung M.D. MPH, Ariel A. Vinson MS, Mariam Saad MD, Galen Perdikis MD, Panambur Laxminarayan Bhandari MD
{"title":"利用尸体模型评估术中微针取出的 X 射线疗效","authors":"Sara C. Chaker BS, Ya-Ching Hung M.D. MPH, Ariel A. Vinson MS, Mariam Saad MD, Galen Perdikis MD, Panambur Laxminarayan Bhandari MD","doi":"10.1002/micr.31143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Institutional protocols often mandate the use of x-rays when a microneedle is lost intraoperatively. Although x-rays can reliably show a macroneedle, the benefit of x-rays in detecting microneedles in human tissues has not been established as available data on this topic are investigated in anthropometric models. The current study aims to evaluate whether x-rays can reliably detect retained microneedles in a human cadaveric model. We hypothesize that microneedles would be detected at a significantly lower rate than macroneedles by x-ray in human tissues.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Needles ranging from 4-0 to 10-0 were placed randomly throughout a cadaveric hand and foot. Each tissue sample was x-rayed using a Fexitron X-Ray machine, taking both anteroposterior and lateral views. A total of six x-ray images were then evaluated by 11 radiologists, independently. The radiologists circled over the area where they visualized a needle. The accuracy of detecting macroneedles (size 4-0 to 7-0) was compared with that of microneedles (size 8-0 to 10-0) using a chi-square test.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The overall detection rate for the microneedles was significantly lower than the detection rate for macroneedles (13.5% vs 88.8%, <i>p</i> < .01). When subcategorized between the hand and the foot, the detection rate for microneedles was also significantly lower than the rate for macroneedles (hand: 7.6% for microneedles, 93.2% for macroneedles, <i>p</i> < .01; foot: 19.5% for microneedles, 84.4% for macroneedles, <i>p</i> < .01). The detection rate, in general, significantly decreased as the sizes of needles became smaller (7-0:70.5%, 8-0:18.2%, 9-0:16.7%, 10-0:2.3%, <i>p</i> < .01).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>X-rays, while useful in detecting macroneedles, had a significantly lower rate of detecting microneedles in a cadaveric model. The routine use of x-rays for a lost microneedle may not be beneficial. Further investigation with fresh tissue and similar intraoperative x-ray systems is warranted to corroborate and support these findings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18600,"journal":{"name":"Microsurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of x-ray efficacy for intraoperative microneedle retrieval using a cadaveric model\",\"authors\":\"Sara C. Chaker BS, Ya-Ching Hung M.D. MPH, Ariel A. Vinson MS, Mariam Saad MD, Galen Perdikis MD, Panambur Laxminarayan Bhandari MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/micr.31143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Institutional protocols often mandate the use of x-rays when a microneedle is lost intraoperatively. Although x-rays can reliably show a macroneedle, the benefit of x-rays in detecting microneedles in human tissues has not been established as available data on this topic are investigated in anthropometric models. The current study aims to evaluate whether x-rays can reliably detect retained microneedles in a human cadaveric model. We hypothesize that microneedles would be detected at a significantly lower rate than macroneedles by x-ray in human tissues.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Needles ranging from 4-0 to 10-0 were placed randomly throughout a cadaveric hand and foot. Each tissue sample was x-rayed using a Fexitron X-Ray machine, taking both anteroposterior and lateral views. A total of six x-ray images were then evaluated by 11 radiologists, independently. The radiologists circled over the area where they visualized a needle. The accuracy of detecting macroneedles (size 4-0 to 7-0) was compared with that of microneedles (size 8-0 to 10-0) using a chi-square test.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The overall detection rate for the microneedles was significantly lower than the detection rate for macroneedles (13.5% vs 88.8%, <i>p</i> < .01). When subcategorized between the hand and the foot, the detection rate for microneedles was also significantly lower than the rate for macroneedles (hand: 7.6% for microneedles, 93.2% for macroneedles, <i>p</i> < .01; foot: 19.5% for microneedles, 84.4% for macroneedles, <i>p</i> < .01). The detection rate, in general, significantly decreased as the sizes of needles became smaller (7-0:70.5%, 8-0:18.2%, 9-0:16.7%, 10-0:2.3%, <i>p</i> < .01).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>X-rays, while useful in detecting macroneedles, had a significantly lower rate of detecting microneedles in a cadaveric model. The routine use of x-rays for a lost microneedle may not be beneficial. Further investigation with fresh tissue and similar intraoperative x-ray systems is warranted to corroborate and support these findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microsurgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microsurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/micr.31143\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/micr.31143","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
当术中丢失微针时,机构协议通常会要求使用 X 光。虽然X射线可以可靠地显示微针,但X射线在人体组织中检测微针的益处尚未确定,因为现有的相关数据都是在人体测量模型中进行研究的。本研究旨在评估 X 射线是否能可靠地检测人体尸体模型中残留的微针。我们假设在人体组织中通过 X 射线检测到微针的比率将明显低于大针。
Assessment of x-ray efficacy for intraoperative microneedle retrieval using a cadaveric model
Introduction
Institutional protocols often mandate the use of x-rays when a microneedle is lost intraoperatively. Although x-rays can reliably show a macroneedle, the benefit of x-rays in detecting microneedles in human tissues has not been established as available data on this topic are investigated in anthropometric models. The current study aims to evaluate whether x-rays can reliably detect retained microneedles in a human cadaveric model. We hypothesize that microneedles would be detected at a significantly lower rate than macroneedles by x-ray in human tissues.
Materials and Methods
Needles ranging from 4-0 to 10-0 were placed randomly throughout a cadaveric hand and foot. Each tissue sample was x-rayed using a Fexitron X-Ray machine, taking both anteroposterior and lateral views. A total of six x-ray images were then evaluated by 11 radiologists, independently. The radiologists circled over the area where they visualized a needle. The accuracy of detecting macroneedles (size 4-0 to 7-0) was compared with that of microneedles (size 8-0 to 10-0) using a chi-square test.
Results
The overall detection rate for the microneedles was significantly lower than the detection rate for macroneedles (13.5% vs 88.8%, p < .01). When subcategorized between the hand and the foot, the detection rate for microneedles was also significantly lower than the rate for macroneedles (hand: 7.6% for microneedles, 93.2% for macroneedles, p < .01; foot: 19.5% for microneedles, 84.4% for macroneedles, p < .01). The detection rate, in general, significantly decreased as the sizes of needles became smaller (7-0:70.5%, 8-0:18.2%, 9-0:16.7%, 10-0:2.3%, p < .01).
Conclusion
X-rays, while useful in detecting macroneedles, had a significantly lower rate of detecting microneedles in a cadaveric model. The routine use of x-rays for a lost microneedle may not be beneficial. Further investigation with fresh tissue and similar intraoperative x-ray systems is warranted to corroborate and support these findings.
期刊介绍:
Microsurgery is an international and interdisciplinary publication of original contributions concerning surgery under microscopic magnification. Microsurgery publishes clinical studies, research papers, invited articles, relevant reviews, and other scholarly works from all related fields including orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, pediatric surgery, plastic surgery, urology, and vascular surgery.