ObjectivesTo meta-analyze complication rate in computed tomography (CT)-guided transthoracic lung biopsy and associated risk factors.MethodsFour databases were searched from 1/2000 to 8/2015 for studies reporting complications in CT-guided lung biopsy. Overall and major complication rates were pooled and compared between core biopsy and fine needle aspiration (FNA) using the random-effects model. Risk factors for complications in core biopsy and FNA were identified in meta-regression analysis.ResultsFor core biopsy, 32 articles (8,133 procedures) were included and for FNA, 17 (4,620 procedures). Pooled overall complication rates for core biopsy and FNA were 38.8 % (95 % CI: 34.3–43.5 %) and 24.0 % (95 % CI: 18.2–30.8 %), respectively. Major complication rates were 5.7 % (95 % CI: 4.4–7.4 %) and 4.4 % (95 % CI: 2.7–7.0 %), respectively. Overall complication rate was higher for core biopsy compared to FNA (p < 0.001). For FNA, larger needle diameter was a risk factor for overall complications, and increased traversed lung parenchyma and smaller lesion size were risk factors for major complications. For core biopsy, no significant risk factors were identified.ConclusionsIn CT-guided lung biopsy, minor complications were common and occurred more often in core biopsy than FNA. Major complication rate was low. For FNA, smaller nodule diameter, larger needle diameter and increased traversed lung parenchyma were risk factors for complications.Key Points• Minor complications are common in CT-guided lung biopsy • Major complication rate is low in CT-guided lung biopsy • CT-guided lung biopsy complications occur more often in core biopsy than FNA • Major complication rate is similar in core biopsy and FNA • Risk factors for FNA are larger needle diameter, smaller lesion size Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4357-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives The aim of the present study is to analyze preclinical and clinical data on the performance of the currently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved microwave ablation (MWA) systems. Methods A review of the literature, published between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016, on seven FDA-approved MWA systems, was conducted. Ratio of ablation zone volume to applied energy R(AZ:E) and sphericity indices were calculated for ex vivo and in vivo experiments. Results Thirty-four studies with ex vivo, in vivo, and clinical data were summarized. In total, 14 studies reporting data on ablation zone volume and applied energy were included for comparison R(AZ:E). A significant correlation between volume and energy was found for the ex vivo experiments ( r = 0.85, p < 0.001) in contrast to the in vivo experiments ( r = 0.54, p = 0.27). Conclusion Manufacturers’ algorithms on microwave ablation zone sizes are based on preclinical animal experiments with normal liver parenchyma. Clinical data reporting on ablation zone volume in relation to applied energy and sphericity index during MWA are scarce and require more adequate reporting of MWA data. Key Points • Clinical data reporting on the ablation zone volume in relation to applied energy during microwave ablation are scarce. • Manufacturers’ algorithms on microwave ablation zone sizes are based on preclinical animal experiments with normal liver parenchyma. • Preclinical data do not predict actual clinical ablation zone volumes in patients with liver tumors.

To compare the accuracy of freehand versus robotic antenna placement in CT-guided microwave ablation (MWA) of liver tumors. Materials and Methods:This study was conducted as a prospective single-center nonblinded randomized controlled trial (Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR6023). Eligible study participants had undergone clinically indicated CT-guided MWA of liver tumors and were able to receive a CT contrast agent. Randomization was performed per tumor after identification on contrast material-enhanced CT images. The primary outcome was the number of antenna repositionings, which was compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary outcomes were lateral targeting error stratified by in-plane and out-of-plane targets and targeting time.Results: Between February 14 and November 12, 2017, 31 participants with a mean age of 63 years (range, 25-88 years) were included: 17 women (mean age, 57 years; range, 25-77 years) and 14 men (mean age, 70 years; range, 52-88 years). The freehand study arm consisted of 19 participants, while the robotic study arm consisted of 18 participants; six participants with multiple tumors were included in both arms. Forty-seven tumors were assessed; five tumors were excluded from the analysis because of technical limitations. In the robotic arm, no antenna repositioning was required. In the freehand arm, a median of one repositioning was required (range, zero to seven repositionings; P , .001). For out-of-plane targets, lateral targeting error was 10.1 mm 6 4.0 and 5.9 mm 6 2.9 (P = .007) for freehand and robotic procedures, respectively, and for in-plane targets, lateral targeting error was 6.2 mm 6 2.7 and 7.7 mm 6 5.9, respectively (P = .51). Mean targeting time was 19 minutes (range, 8-55 minutes) and 36 minutes (range, 3-70 minutes; P = .001) for freehand and robotic procedures, respectively. Conclusion:Robotic antenna guidance reduces the need for antenna repositioning in microwave ablation to accurately target liver tumors and increases accuracy for out-of-plane targets. However, targeting time was greater with robotic guidance than with freehand targeting.