磁性种子和射频识别(RFID)方法在非可扪及乳腺病变定位中的比较。

Ahmet Necati Sanli, Deniz E Tekcan Sanli, Mehra Golshan, Efe Sezgin, Varol Celik, Fatih Aydogan
{"title":"磁性种子和射频识别(RFID)方法在非可扪及乳腺病变定位中的比较。","authors":"Ahmet Necati Sanli, Deniz E Tekcan Sanli, Mehra Golshan, Efe Sezgin, Varol Celik, Fatih Aydogan","doi":"10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_2253_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many methods have been developed for localizing non-palpable breast lesions. This study investigated the success rate and surgical results of the magnetic seed (Magseed) and radiofrequency identification (RFID) method, which are relatively new compared to standard wire-guided localizations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>20 simulation (10 Magseed, 10 RFID) models were created using turkey breasts and raisins. Raisins containing magnetic seed and RFID tags were placed on the turkey breast. Sentimag® probe was used for the Magseed group, and Faxitron LOCalizer™ System device was used in the RFID group. Both methods were evaluated in terms of accuracy in detecting breast lesion localization, operation times, excised tissue weights, total resection volume, surgical margin negativity, and re-excision rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lesion localization success in both techniques was 100%. While procedure times were statistically significantly shorter in the Magseed group, incision lengths were shorter in the RFID group (P = 0.013, P = 0.007, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups for the weight of the removed parts, total resection volume, and surgical margin distance (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this feasibility study, it was concluded that neither the RFID nor Magseed methods had a significant advantage over each other, in terms of localization detection and surgical margin negativity, and both methods could be used successfully for localization.</p>","PeriodicalId":94070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","volume":"20 5","pages":"1435-1439"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of magnetic seed and RFID methods in the localization of non-palpable breast lesions.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmet Necati Sanli, Deniz E Tekcan Sanli, Mehra Golshan, Efe Sezgin, Varol Celik, Fatih Aydogan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_2253_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many methods have been developed for localizing non-palpable breast lesions. This study investigated the success rate and surgical results of the magnetic seed (Magseed) and radiofrequency identification (RFID) method, which are relatively new compared to standard wire-guided localizations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>20 simulation (10 Magseed, 10 RFID) models were created using turkey breasts and raisins. Raisins containing magnetic seed and RFID tags were placed on the turkey breast. Sentimag® probe was used for the Magseed group, and Faxitron LOCalizer™ System device was used in the RFID group. Both methods were evaluated in terms of accuracy in detecting breast lesion localization, operation times, excised tissue weights, total resection volume, surgical margin negativity, and re-excision rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lesion localization success in both techniques was 100%. While procedure times were statistically significantly shorter in the Magseed group, incision lengths were shorter in the RFID group (P = 0.013, P = 0.007, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups for the weight of the removed parts, total resection volume, and surgical margin distance (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this feasibility study, it was concluded that neither the RFID nor Magseed methods had a significant advantage over each other, in terms of localization detection and surgical margin negativity, and both methods could be used successfully for localization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"20 5\",\"pages\":\"1435-1439\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_2253_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_2253_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前已开发出许多方法用于定位不可触及的乳腺病变。本研究调查了磁性种子(Magseed)和射频识别(RFID)方法的成功率和手术效果,与标准的导线定位法相比,磁性种子和射频识别是相对较新的方法。火鸡胸脯上放置了含有磁性种子和 RFID 标签的葡萄干。磁籽组使用 Sentimag® 探头,RFID 组使用 Faxitron LOCalizer™ 系统设备。对两种方法在检测乳腺病灶定位的准确性、手术时间、切除组织重量、切除总量、手术边缘阴性率和再次切除率等方面进行了评估:结果:两种技术的病灶定位成功率均为 100%。在统计学上,Magseed 组的手术时间明显更短,而 RFID 组的切口长度更短(分别为 P = 0.013 和 P = 0.007)。在切除部分的重量、总切除量和手术切缘距离方面,各组之间没有统计学差异(P > 0.05):在这项可行性研究中,我们得出的结论是,无论是 RFID 还是 Magseed 方法,在定位检测和手术切缘阴性方面都没有明显的优势,两种方法都可以成功用于定位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of magnetic seed and RFID methods in the localization of non-palpable breast lesions.

Background: Many methods have been developed for localizing non-palpable breast lesions. This study investigated the success rate and surgical results of the magnetic seed (Magseed) and radiofrequency identification (RFID) method, which are relatively new compared to standard wire-guided localizations.

Materials and methods: 20 simulation (10 Magseed, 10 RFID) models were created using turkey breasts and raisins. Raisins containing magnetic seed and RFID tags were placed on the turkey breast. Sentimag® probe was used for the Magseed group, and Faxitron LOCalizer™ System device was used in the RFID group. Both methods were evaluated in terms of accuracy in detecting breast lesion localization, operation times, excised tissue weights, total resection volume, surgical margin negativity, and re-excision rates.

Results: Lesion localization success in both techniques was 100%. While procedure times were statistically significantly shorter in the Magseed group, incision lengths were shorter in the RFID group (P = 0.013, P = 0.007, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups for the weight of the removed parts, total resection volume, and surgical margin distance (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: In this feasibility study, it was concluded that neither the RFID nor Magseed methods had a significant advantage over each other, in terms of localization detection and surgical margin negativity, and both methods could be used successfully for localization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Microwave Ablation after VATS in Patients with Multiple Pulmonary Nodules. Adenoid basal carcinoma cervix - A rare epithelial neoplasm. An aggressive Cushing's syndrome originating from a rare thymic neuroendocrine tumor, controlled successfully with fluconazole and octreotide therapy before surgery. Analysis of the gamma index using an indigenously developed anthropomorphic heterogeneous female pelvis (AHFP) phantom. First clinical experience of total body irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy technique in Japan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1