A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Augmented reality guided versus computed tomography guided percutaneous lung nodule localization: a noninferiority randomized clinical trial. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Hypothesis: This study hypothesized that augmented reality (AR) technology has comparable accuracy and safety to conventional CT localization in guiding percutaneous transthoracic lung puncture (PTLP) to localize small pulmonary nodules.

Methods: This study was a prospective, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomly assigned between 23 May 2023, and 26 September 2023. Patients with small peripheral lung nodules (≤2 cm) were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to either the CT-guided PTLP group or the AR-guided PTLP group, with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome was the accuracy of lung nodule localization measured by localization error. The secondary outcomes included procedure duration, radiation exposure dosage and complications.

Results: A total of 70 patients underwent either CT- or AR-guided lung nodule localization and subsequent surgeries. Localization error was smaller in the AR-guided group than in the CT-guided group (mean ± SD, 3.1 ± 4.0 mm vs. 5.4 ± 4.2 mm, P = 0.026). The mean difference of localization errors was -2.3 mm (95% CI: - 4.2 to -0.3 mm, P < 0.001 for non-inferiority). Compared to the CT-guided group, the AR-guided group demonstrated significantly lower radiation exposure (mean ± SD, 421 ± 168 vs. 694 ± 229 mGy × cm, P < 0.001) and shorter localization procedure duration (mean ± SD, 8.8 ± 2.3 vs. 14.1 ± 1.8 minutes, P < 0.001), with no statistical difference in complications.

Conclusions: The accuracy of the AR-guided approach is comparable to that of the CT-guided approach in localizing small lung nodules. Furthermore, the utilization of AR technology has been demonstrated to reduce procedural time and minimize radiation exposure for patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12175789PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002308DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lung nodule
12
nodule localization
12
radiation exposure
12
augmented reality
8
localization
8
randomized clinical
8
clinical trial
8
patients randomly
8
randomly assigned
8
lung nodules
8

Similar Publications