Comparison of 3 Different Systems for Non-wire Localization of Lesions in Breast Cancer Surgery

@article{72863,
   author = {Gabrielová, Lucie and Selingerová, Iveta and Žatecký, Jan and Zapletal, Ondřej and Burkoň, Petr and Holánek, Miloš and Coufal, Oldřich},
   article_number = {6},
   doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2023.05.006},
   keywords = {Lesion localization; Radioactive seed localization; Magnetically guided localization; Radar localization},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {1526-8209},
   journal = {Clinical Breast Cancer},
   title = {Comparison of 3 Different Systems for Non-wire Localization of Lesions in Breast Cancer Surgery},
   url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526820923001118},
   volume = {23},
   year = {2023}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 72863
AU  - Gabrielová, Lucie - Selingerová, Iveta - Žatecký, Jan - Zapletal, Ondřej - Burkoň, Petr - Holánek, Miloš - Coufal, Oldřich
PY  - 2023
TI  - Comparison of 3 Different Systems for Non-wire Localization of Lesions in Breast Cancer Surgery
JF  - Clinical Breast Cancer
VL  - 23
IS  - 6
SP  - 323-330
EP  - 323-330
SN  - 15268209
KW  - Lesion localization
KW  - Radioactive seed localization
KW  - Magnetically guided localization
KW  - Radar localization
UR  - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526820923001118
N2  - Localizing breast lesions by marking tumors and their detection using probes during surgery is a common part of clinical practice. Various nonwire localization systems were intended to be compared from different perspectives. Methods Various measurement experiments were performed. Localization techniques, including radioactive seed (RSLS), magnetically guided (MGLS), or radar (SLS), were compared in signal propagation in water and tissue environments, signal interference by surgical instruments, and the practical experience of surgeons. Individual experiments were thoroughly prospectively planned. Results The RSLS signal was detectable at the largest evaluated distance, ie, 60 mm. The SLS and MGLS signal detection was shorter, up to 25 mm to 45 mm and 30 mm, respectively. The signal intensity and the maximum detection distance in water differed slightly depending on the localization marker orientation to the probe, especially for SLS and MGLS. Signal propagation in the tissue was noted to a depth of 60 mm for RSLS, 50 mm for SLS, and 20 mm for MGLS. Except for the expected signal interferences by approaching surgical instruments from any direction for MGLS, the signal interruption for RSLS and SLS was observed only by inserting instruments directly between the localization marker and probe. Moreover, the SLS signal interference by instrument touch was noted. Based on surgeons' results, individual systems did not differ significantly for most measurement condition settings. Conclusion Apparent differences noted among localization systems can help experts choose an appropriate system for a specific situation or reveal small nuances that have not yet been observed in clinical practice.
ER  - 

GABRIELOVÁ, Lucie, Iveta SELINGEROVÁ, Jan ŽATECKÝ, Ondřej ZAPLETAL, Petr BURKOŇ, Miloš HOLÁNEK a Oldřich COUFAL. Comparison of 3 Different Systems for Non-wire Localization of Lesions in Breast Cancer Surgery. \textit{Clinical Breast Cancer}. 2023, roč.~23, č.~6, s.~323-330. ISSN~1526-8209. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2023.05.006.