MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients who underwent IBCT were allocated to Group I (n = 30; microscopic IBCT) and Group II (n = 30; endoscopic IBCT) by the dates of their visits. Anatomical success was defined as an intact, repaired tympanic membrane; functional success was defined as a significant decrease in the air-bone gap. Postoperative discomfort was analyzed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Thirteen trainees completed structured questionnaires exploring anatomical identification and the surgical steps.
RESULTS: The surgical success rates were 96.7% in Group I and 100% in Group II. We found no between-group differences in the mean decrease in the air-bone gap or the extent of postoperative discomfort. Significant postoperative hearing improvements were evident in both groups. The mean operative time was shorter when the microscopic approach was chosen (17.7±4.53 vs. 26.13±9.94 min). The two approaches significantly differed in terms of the identification of external and middle ear anatomical features by the trainees, and their understanding of the surgical steps.
CONCLUSION: Both endoscopic and microscopic IBCT were associated with good success rates. The endoscopic approach facilitates visualization, and a better understanding of the middle ear anatomy and the required surgical steps and thus is of greater educational utility.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy, safety, and diagnostic outcome of fluoroscopic guided and CT transpedicular biopsy techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial.
PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty consecutive patients with clinical symptoms and radiological features suggestive of spinal infection or malignancy were recruited and randomized into fluoroscopic or CT guided spinal biopsy groups. Both groups were similar in terms of patient demographics, distribution of spinal infections and malignancy cases, and the level of biopsies.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of both methods, determined based on true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative biopsy findings. Secondary outcome measures included radiation exposure to patients and doctors, complications, and postbiopsy pain score.
METHODS: A transpedicular approach was performed with an 8G core biopsy needle. Specimens were sent for histopathological and microbiological examinations. Diagnosis was made based on biopsy results, clinical criteria and monitoring of disease progression during a 6-month follow up duration. Clinical criteria included presence of risk factors, level of inflammatory markers and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Radiation exposure to patients and doctors was measured with dosimeters.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of fluoroscopic and CT guided spinal biopsy (p=0.67) or between the diagnostic accuracy of spinal infection and spinal tumor in both groups (p=0.402 for fluoroscopy group and p=0.223 for CT group). Radiation exposure to patients was approximately 26 times higher in the CT group. Radiation exposure to doctors in the CT group was approximately 2 times higher compared to the fluoroscopic group if a lead shield was not used. Lead shields significantly reduced radiation exposure to doctors anywhere from 2 to 8 times. No complications were observed for either group and the differences in postbiopsy pain scores were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy, procedure time, complication rate and pain score for both groups were similar. However, radiation exposure to patients and doctors were significantly higher in the CT group without lead protection. With lead protection, radiation to doctors reduced significantly.