1.Musculoskeletal Applications of Elastography: a Pictorial Essay of Our Initial Experience.
Palle LALITHA ; M Ch Balaji REDDY ; K Jagannath REDDY
Korean Journal of Radiology 2011;12(3):365-375
Elastography is an ultrasound-based newer imaging technique that is currently being used for the evaluation of breast lesions and hepatic pathology. It is also being evaluated for characterizing lesions of the prostate, thyroid, cervix and lymph nodes. We have applied real-time sonoelastography to a variety of musculoskeletal pathologies and here we report the findings of elastography for the evaluation of various musculoskeletal pathologies. Elastography of musculoskeletal lesions is not yet being routinely used in clinical practice, but it is being extensively researched.
Elasticity Imaging Techniques/*methods
;
Humans
;
Musculoskeletal Diseases/*ultrasonography
2.Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy
Debnarayan DUTTA ; Kaushik Jagannath KATAKI ; Shibu GEORGE ; Sruthi K. REDDY ; Ajay SASHIDHARAN ; Rajesh KANNAN ; Ram MADHAVAN ; Haridas NAIR ; Tushar TATINENI ; Raghavendra HOLLA
Radiation Oncology Journal 2020;38(4):253-261
Background:
Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife.
Materials and Methods:
Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis(PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement.
Results:
One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was “good” in 24(67%), “fair” in 4(11%), and “poor” in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in “poor”, “fair”, and “good” score was 2/2(100%), 4/5(80%), and 24/27(89%), respectively(p=0.001). Child-Pugh score(p=0.080), performance status(PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during “learning curve”(p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time(p=0.055), recovery time(p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications(p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved(p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer(BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. “Good” placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort(p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively(p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0–1 in 26 patients(72%) and pain score 3–4 was in 2(6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in “day-care”(2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient(3%) admitted for hemothorax.
Conclusion
Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, “quality” of placement is “good” in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the “learning curve”. Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications.
3.Prospective evaluation of fiducial marker placement quality and toxicity in liver CyberKnife stereotactic body radiotherapy
Debnarayan DUTTA ; Kaushik Jagannath KATAKI ; Shibu GEORGE ; Sruthi K. REDDY ; Ajay SASHIDHARAN ; Rajesh KANNAN ; Ram MADHAVAN ; Haridas NAIR ; Tushar TATINENI ; Raghavendra HOLLA
Radiation Oncology Journal 2020;38(4):253-261
Background:
Evaluate morbidities and “quality” of fiducial marker placement in primary liver tumours (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) for CyberKnife.
Materials and Methods:
Thirty-six HCC with portal vein thrombosis(PVT) were evaluated for “quality” of fiducial placement, placement time, pain score, complications, recovery time and factors influencing placement.
Results:
One hundred eight fiducials were placed in 36 patients. Fiducial placement radiation oncologist score was “good” in 24(67%), “fair” in 4(11%), and “poor” in 3(8%) patients. Concordance with radiologist score in “poor”, “fair”, and “good” score was 2/2(100%), 4/5(80%), and 24/27(89%), respectively(p=0.001). Child-Pugh score(p=0.080), performance status(PS) (p=0.014) and accrued during “learning curve”(p=0.013) affected placement score. Mean placement time(p=0.055), recovery time(p=0.025) was longer and higher major complications(p=0.009) with poor PS. Liver segment involved(p=0.484) and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer(BCLC) stage did not influence placement score. “Good” placement score was 30% in first cohort whereas 93% in last cohort(p=0.023). Time for placement was 42.2 and 14.3 minutes, respectively(p=0.069). Post-fiducial pain score 0–1 in 26 patients(72%) and pain score 3–4 was in 2(6%). Five patients (14%) admitted in “day-care”(2 mild pneumothorax, 3 pain). Mortality in 1 patient(3%) admitted for hemothorax.
Conclusion
Fiducial placement is safe and in experienced hands, “quality” of placement is “good” in majority. Major complications and admission after fiducial placement are rare. Complications, fiducial placement time, recovery time is more during the “learning curve”. Poor Child-Pugh score, extensive liver involvement, poor PS have higher probability of complications.