J 2023

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

GABRIELOVÁ, Lucie, Iveta SELINGEROVÁ, Jan ŽATECKÝ, Ondřej ZAPLETAL, Petr BURKOŇ et. al.

Basic information

Original name

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

Authors

GABRIELOVÁ, Lucie (203 Czech Republic, guarantor), Iveta SELINGEROVÁ, Jan ŽATECKÝ (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Ondřej ZAPLETAL, Petr BURKOŇ, Miloš HOLÁNEK and Oldřich COUFAL

Edition

Clinical Breast Cancer, 2023, 1526-8209

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Článek v odborném periodiku

Field of Study

30204 Oncology

Country of publisher

United States of America

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

References:

RIV identification code

RIV/47813059:19510/23:A0000491

Organization unit

Faculty of Public Policies in Opava

UT WoS

001055066900001

Keywords in English

Lesion localization; Radioactive seed localization; Magnetically guided localization; Radar localization

Tags

International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 25/3/2024 12:23, Ing. Lucie Chmelařová

Abstract

V originále

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.