Ultrasound Contrast Agent Needle Priming: Impact on Sonographic Biopsy Needle Visibility in a Porcine Liver Model.

PURPOSE: The visibility of biopsy needles in contrast-specific imaging mode can be improved by priming them with an ultrasound contrast agent (previously demonstrated in a phantom model/ex vivo). The purpose of this study was to validate this priming method in a porcine in vivo model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a small syringe, full-core biopsy needles were primed with sulfur hexafluoride, an ultrasound contrast agent, with non-primed needles serving as controls (n = 30 + 30). Liver punctures were performed in a porcine model following intravenous administration of the same ultrasound contrast agent. Needle visibility, both in their entirety and at the tips, was evaluated in split-screen mode using contrast-specific imaging and B-mode (low mechanical index). The assessment included quantitative analysis, calculating the contrast-to-noise ratio, and qualitative evaluation through structured grading by three radiologists. RESULTS: After needle priming, the contrast-to-noise ratio was superior for the needle in its entirety in contrast-specific imaging mode (p < 0.001) and slightly inferior in B-mode (p = 0.008). No differences were observed for the needle tips in either imaging mode. Qualitatively, the needle visibility was deemed clinically superior after needle priming throughout in contrast-specific imaging mode (p < 0.001), whereas no clinically relevant differences in B-mode for either the needle in its entirety (p = 0.11) or the needle tip (p = 1) were observed. CONCLUSION: In this in vivo porcine liver model experiment, priming biopsy needles with ultrasound contrast agent improved needle visibility in contrast-specific imaging mode but slightly reduced it in B-mode. These findings support the method's use for biopsies requiring target visualization in contrast-specific imaging mode.

Ablative or Surgical Treatment for Small Renal Masses (T1a): A Single-Center Comparison of Perioperative Morbidity and Complications.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the treatment safety of thermal ablation compared to surgical treatment of T1a tumors (small renal masses) at a high-volume center. We conducted an observational single-center study based on data collected form the National Swedish Kidney Cancer Register (NSKCR) between 2015 and 2021. In total, 444 treatments of T1a tumors were included. Patients underwent surgery (partial or total nephrectomy) or ablative treatment-radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or microwave ablation (MWA). Patient characteristics were retrieved from patient records, and tumor complexity was estimated from pre-interventional CT scans. The odds ratio (OR) of suffering from a severe surgical complication following ablative treatment was estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted for age, BMI, ASA physical status classification, smoking status and RENAL nephrometry score. The frequency of severe surgical complications was 6.3% (16/256 treatments) after surgical intervention and 2.1% (4/188 treatments) following ablative treatment. Our primary hypothesis that ablative treatment is associated with a lower risk of severe surgical complications is supported by the results (OR 0.39; 0.19-0.79; p = 0.013). When adjusting for age, smoking status, ASA score, BMI score and RENAL nephrometry score, we see an even greater difference between the two groups (OR 0.34; 0.17-0.68; p = 0.002). Our study was limited by the differences in patient and tumor characteristics between the two compared groups and the study design. If oncological outcomes are found to be comparable, ablative treatment should be considered as a first-line treatment for all small renal masses.