{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041463414634146344, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026016260162601626, 'mean_word_length': 4.8619047619047615, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Control of percutaneous biopsy with CT fluoroscopy].

PURPOSE
Clinical evaluation of CT fluoroscopy and comparison with conventional CT guidance for monitoring of non-pulmonary percutaneous biopsy procedures.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
20 non-pulmonary CT-guided biopsy procedures were prospectively performed either with CT fluoroscopy or with conventional CT guidance. CT fluoroscopy was performed using 120 kV and 50, 70 or 90 mA at a frame-rate of three or six images per second. Number of punctures and biopsies, procedure times, radiation doses and histologic results were analyzed separately for conventional CT guidance and for CT fluoroscopy.


RESULTS
With CT fluoroscopy, yield of biopsies was improved (p = 0.005, t-test) and procedure times were shorter than for conventional CT guidance (11.4 +/- 6.0 vs. 23.6 +/- 13.8 min; p = 0.03, t-test). Analysis of procedure related radiation exposure and histologic outcome showed no significant difference between conventional and fluoroscopic CT-guided procedures (p > 0.05, t-test).


CONCLUSIONS
CT fluoroscopy facilitates guidance of percutaneous biopsy procedures. Compared to conventional CT assistance, procedure times are decreased while yield of biopsies is improved.