Cargando…

Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study

Rationale and objectives: Several commercially available breast tissue markers are promoted as being sonographically visible, allowing for subsequent targeting using ultrasound. The aim of this study was to compare the visibility of selected sonographic markers with the use of tissue phantoms. Mater...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seow, James Han‐Su, Phillips, Michael, Taylor, Donna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5024915/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28191161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2205-0140.2012.tb00198.x
_version_ 1782453861357715456
author Seow, James Han‐Su
Phillips, Michael
Taylor, Donna
author_facet Seow, James Han‐Su
Phillips, Michael
Taylor, Donna
author_sort Seow, James Han‐Su
collection PubMed
description Rationale and objectives: Several commercially available breast tissue markers are promoted as being sonographically visible, allowing for subsequent targeting using ultrasound. The aim of this study was to compare the visibility of selected sonographic markers with the use of tissue phantoms. Materials and methods: Seven different markers were deployed into chicken and beef tissue phantoms, including a non‐sonographically enhanced marker used as a baseline. Six participants assessed their sonographic visibility and needle targeted the markers using ultrasound. The sonographic visibility of each marker was graded, with scores corrected for accuracy following mammographic review of needle targeting position. Results: Only four of the six “ultrasound enhanced” markers demonstrated statistically significant greater visibility than the non‐sonographically designed marker (P range < 0.001 to 0.04). Marker size (P < 0.001) and composition (P < 0.004) were shown to be contributing factors, with the composition of the BiomarC™ (Carbon Medical Technologies Inc, St Paul, MN, USA) demonstrating the highest conspicuity adjusted for length. Conclusion: There is significant variance in the visibility of breast tissue markers purported to be visible on ultrasound. Marker size, composition and possibly shape are contributory factors, with the utilisation of non‐metallic components associated with improved conspicuity. Our study provides a basis for further determination of optimal marker qualities, and we recommend evaluation with a larger sample size and an “in‐vivo” technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5024915
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50249152017-02-10 Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study Seow, James Han‐Su Phillips, Michael Taylor, Donna Australas J Ultrasound Med Original Research Rationale and objectives: Several commercially available breast tissue markers are promoted as being sonographically visible, allowing for subsequent targeting using ultrasound. The aim of this study was to compare the visibility of selected sonographic markers with the use of tissue phantoms. Materials and methods: Seven different markers were deployed into chicken and beef tissue phantoms, including a non‐sonographically enhanced marker used as a baseline. Six participants assessed their sonographic visibility and needle targeted the markers using ultrasound. The sonographic visibility of each marker was graded, with scores corrected for accuracy following mammographic review of needle targeting position. Results: Only four of the six “ultrasound enhanced” markers demonstrated statistically significant greater visibility than the non‐sonographically designed marker (P range < 0.001 to 0.04). Marker size (P < 0.001) and composition (P < 0.004) were shown to be contributing factors, with the composition of the BiomarC™ (Carbon Medical Technologies Inc, St Paul, MN, USA) demonstrating the highest conspicuity adjusted for length. Conclusion: There is significant variance in the visibility of breast tissue markers purported to be visible on ultrasound. Marker size, composition and possibly shape are contributory factors, with the utilisation of non‐metallic components associated with improved conspicuity. Our study provides a basis for further determination of optimal marker qualities, and we recommend evaluation with a larger sample size and an “in‐vivo” technique. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-12-31 2012-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5024915/ /pubmed/28191161 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2205-0140.2012.tb00198.x Text en © 2012 Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine
spellingShingle Original Research
Seow, James Han‐Su
Phillips, Michael
Taylor, Donna
Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study
title Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study
title_full Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study
title_fullStr Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study
title_full_unstemmed Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study
title_short Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study
title_sort sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5024915/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28191161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2205-0140.2012.tb00198.x
work_keys_str_mv AT seowjameshansu sonographicvisibilityofbreasttissuemarkersatissuephantomcomparisonstudy
AT phillipsmichael sonographicvisibilityofbreasttissuemarkersatissuephantomcomparisonstudy
AT taylordonna sonographicvisibilityofbreasttissuemarkersatissuephantomcomparisonstudy