top of page
AccessCube_Phantomstudy_edited_edited.jpg

CONVINCING RESULTS

PHANTOM STUDY SUMMARY

  • Freehand vs. CNS with Access Cube

  • 48 Punctures, 24 per method

  • Single & double oblique targets at 5 & 10 cm depth
     

​Variables:

  • Error: Distance to target

  • Time: Total procedure time

  • Additional 11 Punctures in a wobbly phantom, simulating fatty tissue with no significant difference (p = 0.48) to normal phantom.

ablauf_weiss_lila-07.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

ablauf_weiss_lila-08.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

ablauf_weiss_lila-09.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

ablauf_weiss_lila-10.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

ablauf_weiss_lila-11.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

CONVINCING RESULTS

Figure 4.png

​RESULT

  • Use of CNS vs.  conventional free-hand procedure resulted in a statistically significantly improved accuracy (3.4 mm ± 2.3 mm versus FHM 4.9 mm ± 3.2 mm)

  • Overall lower intervention time (168 s ± 28.5 s versus FHM 200 s ± 44.8 s)

  • Number of CT scans was reduced 2.3 versus FHM 2.8

PHANTOM STUDY SUMMARY

  • Freehand vs. CNS with Puncture Cube

  • 72 Punctures, 36 per method

  • Single & double oblique targets at 5 & 10 cm depth

  • ​Variables: Error: distance to target; Time: total procedure time; number of control scans

ablauf_weiss_lila-07.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

ablauf_weiss_lila-08.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

ablauf_weiss_lila-09.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

ablauf_weiss_lila-10.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

ablauf_weiss_lila-11.png
1. PLACE

Place the Puncture Cube over target region

bottom of page