Body interventional procedures: which is the best method for CT guidance?

  • Jean-Philippe LustigEmail author
  • Sébastien Aubry
  • Chrystelle Vidal
  • Lionel Pazart
  • Alexandre Moreau-Gaudry
  • Ivan Bricault



To compare sequential fluoroscopy guidance with spiral guidance in terms of safety, effectiveness, speed and radiation in interventional whole body procedures.


This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the prospective, randomised controlled, multicentre CTNAV2 study. The present analysis included 385 patients: 247 in the sequential group (SEQ) and 138 in the spiral group (SPI). Safety was assessed by the number of major complications. Effectiveness was measured according to the number of targets reached. Data on procedural time and radiation delivered to patients were also collected.


There was no significant difference between the two groups (SEQ vs SPI) regarding the success rate (99.6% vs 99.3%, p = 0.680), procedural time (7 min 40 s ± 5 min 48 s vs 7 min 13 s ± 7 min 33 s, p = 0.507), or major complications (2.43% vs 5.8%, p = 0.101). Radiation dose to patients was 84% lower in the sequential group (54.8 ± 51.8 mGy cm vs 352.6 ± 404 mGy cm, p < 0.0001).


Sequential CT fluoroscopy-guided whole-body interventional procedures seems to be as safe, effective and fast as spiral guidance, while also yielding a significant decrease in the radiation dose to patients.

Key Points

• Sequential CT fluoroscopy and spiral acquisition are comparable in terms of safety, effectiveness and speed.

• Procedural times are comparable despite an increased number of acquisitions in sequential fluoroscopy.

• Radiation dose to patients is 84% lower in sequential fluoroscopy compared with spiral CT.


Radiology, interventional Radiation dosage Fluoroscopy Tomography, X-ray computed 



Expert Committee for Research, Studies and Evaluations in the field of Health


Computed tomography


Computed Dosimetry Dose Index


Computed tomography fluoroscopy


Computed Tomography NAVigation 2


Dose length product


Magnetic resonance imaging




Sequential group


Society of Interventional Radiology


Spiral group


Funding information

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Pr Sébastien Aubry

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Patients had given written, informed consent during the CTNAV 2 study as part of a national hospital clinical research programme ( identifier: NCT01896219) that their health data could be used for other research purposes.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted on existing data from the CTNAV 2 study as part of a national hospital clinical research programme ( identifier: NCT01896219). The opinion of the Expert Committee for Research, Studies and Evaluations in the field of Health (CEREES) was therefore not required.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in : Rouchy RC, Moreau-Gaudry A, Chipon E, et al (2017) Evaluation of the clinical benefit of an electromagnetic navigation system for CT-guided interventional radiology procedures in the thoraco-abdominal region compared with conventional CT guidance (CTNAV II): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 18:306. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2049-6


• Retrospective

• Observational

• Multicentre study


  1. 1.
    Silverman SG, Bloom DA, Seltzer SE, Tempany CM, Adams DF (1992) Needle-tip localization during CT-guided abdominal biopsy: comparison of conventional and spiral CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:1095–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katada K, Anno H, Takeshita G et al (1994) Development of realtime CT fluoroscopy. Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 54:1172–1174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paulson EK, Sheafor DH, Enterline DS, McAdams HP, Yoshizumi TT (2001) CT fluoroscopy–guided interventional procedures: techniques and radiation dose to radiologists. Radiology 220:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paprottka PM, Helmberger T, Reiser MF, Trumm CG (2013) Computed tomography guidance: fluoroscopy and more. Radiologe 53:974–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keat N (2001) Real-time CT and CT fluoroscopy. Br J Radiol 74:1088–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joemai RM, Zweers D, Obermann WR, Geleijns J (2009) Assessment of patient and occupational dose in established and new applications of MDCT fluoroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:881–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yueh N, Halvorsen RA Jr, Letourneau JG, Crass JR (1989) Gantry tilt technique for CT-guided biopsy and drainage. J Comput Assist Tomogr 13:182–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bissoli E, Bison L, Gioulis E et al (2003) Multislice CT fluoroscopy: technical principles, clinical applications and dosimetry. Radiol Med 106:201–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghaye B, Dondelinger RF, Dewe W (1999) Percutaneous CTguided lung biopsy: sequential versus spiral scanning. A randomized prospective study. Eur Radiol 9:1317–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silverman SG, Tuncali K, Adams DF et al (1999) CT fluoroscopyguided abdominal interventions: techniques, results, and radiation exposure. Radiology 212:673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sheafor DH, Paulson EK, Kliewer MA et al (2000) Comparison of sonographic and CT guidance techniques: does CT fluoroscopy decrease procedure time? AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:939–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carlson SK, Bender CE, Classic KL et al (2001) Benefits and safety of CT fluoroscopy in interventional radiologic procedures. Radiology 219:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heck SL, Blom P, Berstad A (2006) Accuracy and complications in computed tomography fluoroscopy-guided needle biopsies of lung masses. Eur Radiol 16:1387–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim GR, Hur J, Lee SM et al (2011) CT fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy versus conventional CT-guided lung biopsy: a prospective controlled study to assess radiation doses and diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 21:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prosch H, Stadler A, Schilling M et al (2012) CT fluoroscopyguided vs. multislice CT biopsy mode-guided lung biopsies: accuracy, complications and radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 81:1029–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Silverman SG et al (2000) Patient and personnel exposure during CT fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Radiology 216:180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirchner J, Kickuth R, Laufer U et al (2002) CT fluoroscopyassisted puncture of thoracic and abdominal masses: a randomized trial. Clin Radiol 57:188–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Froelich JJ, Ishaque N, Regn J et al (2002) Guidance of percutaneous pulmonary biopsies with real-time CT fluoroscopy. Eur J Radiol 42:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kloeckner R, dos Santos DP, Schneider J et al (2013) Radiation exposure in CT-guided interventions. Eur J Radiol 82:2253–2257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rouchy RC, Moreau-Gaudry A, Chipon E et al (2017) Evaluation of the clinical benefit of an electromagnetic navigation system for CT-guided interventional radiology procedures in the thoracoabdominal region compared with conventional CT guidance (CTNAV II): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 18:306. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF, Lewis CA (2003) Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S199–S202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leng S, Christner JA, Carlson SK et al (2011) Radiation dose levels for interventional CT procedures. AJRAmJ Roentgenol 197:W97–W103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mellenberg DE, Sato Y, Thompson BH, Warnock NG (1999) Personnel exposure rates during simulated biopsies with a realtime CT scanner. Acad Radiol 6:687–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moulin B, Tselikas L, de Baère T et al (2019) CT guidance assisted by electromagnetic navigation system for percutaneous fixation by internal cemented screws (FICS). Eur Radiol 12:6243s–6247sGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Faiella E, Frauenfelder G, Santucci D et al (2018) Percutaneous low-dose CT-guided lung biopsy with an augmented reality navigation system: validation of the technique on 496 suspected lesions. Clin Imaging 49:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schubert T, Jacob AL, Pansini M et al (2013) CT-guided interventions using a free-hand, optical tracking system: initial clinical experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36:1055–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hiraki T, Kamegawa T, Matsuno T et al (2019) Robotic needle insertion during computed tomography fluoroscopy-guided biopsy: prospective first-in-human feasibility trial. Eur Radiol 42:74–77Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sarti M, BrehmerWP GSB (2012) Low-dose techniques in CTguided interventions. Radiographics 32:1109–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chintapalli KN, Montgomery RS, Hatab M et al (2012) Radiation dose management: part 1, minimizing radiation dose in CT-guided procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W347–W351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lucey BC, Varghese JC, Hochberg A et al (2007) CT-guided intervention with low radiation dose: feasibility and experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1187–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dixon RG, Ogden K (2010) Optimizing dose in computed tomographic guided procedures. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 13:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Adiga S, Athreya S (2014) Safety, efficacy, and feasibility of an ultra-low dose radiation protocol for CT-guided percutaneous needle biopsy of pulmonary lesions: initial experience. Clin Radiol 69:709–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCHU BesanconBesanconFrance
  2. 2.Nanomedecine Laboratory, INSERM EA4662Université Bourgogne Franche-ComteBesanconFrance
  3. 3.Clinical Investigation Center, INSERM CIT808CHU BesanconBesanconFrance
  4. 4.Clinical Investigation Center - Innovative Technology INSERM 1406University Hospital, GrenobleLa TroncheFrance
  5. 5.Laboratory of Techniques for Biomedical Engineering and Complexity ManagementUniversity Grenoble Alpes, National Center for Scientific ResearchGrenobleFrance
  6. 6.Department of Radiology and Medical ImagingUniversity Hospital, GrenobleLa TroncheFrance

Personalised recommendations