GABRIELOVÁ, Lucie, Iveta SELINGEROVÁ, Jan ŽATECKÝ, Ondřej ZAPLETAL, Petr BURKOŇ, Miloš HOLÁNEK and Oldřich COUFAL. Comparison of 3 Different Systems for Non-wire Localization of Lesions in Breast Cancer Surgery. Clinical Breast Cancer. vol. 23, No 6, p. 323-330. ISSN 1526-8209. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2023.05.006. 2023.
Other formats:   BibTeX LaTeX RIS
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
Original language English
Type of outcome Article in a journal
Field of Study 30204 Oncology
Country of publisher United States of America
Confidentiality degree is not subject to a state or trade secret
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
Changed by Changed by: Ing. Lucie Chmelařová, učo 50152. Changed: 25/3/2024 12:23.
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.
PrintDisplayed: 20/4/2024 19:02