ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Localization of nonpalpable breast cancers can be achieved with several techniques. We sought to compare radio-guided localization (ROLL) and magnetic tracer localization (MOLL) techniques by using a phantom model we previously developed, which can provide an accurate simulation for excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed 20 phantom models (10 MOLL, 10 ROLL group) for localization. A handheld gamma probe for the ROLL group and a manual magnetometer (SentiMag) for the MOLL group were used to test the ability of the modality to detect olives in turkey breasts. The excision time for each procedure, specimen size, and weight of the specimens removed from the turkey breasts were recorded. RESULTS: Both techniques resulted in 100% retrieval of the lesions. There was no difference between the groups in the duration of operative excision, specimen weight, or specimen volume. CONCLUSION: This experimental trial found similar success rates for ROLL and MOLL in localization of occult lesions using the turkey breast phantom model. MOLL can be performed in clinics without the need for a nuclear medicine team and radiation safety procedures.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Models, Anatomic , Phantoms, Imaging , Radionuclide Imaging/instrumentation , Animals , Breast/surgery , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Female , Humans , Magnetic Phenomena , Mastectomy/methods , Patient Care Planning , Poultry , Radiopharmaceuticals , Surgery, Computer-Assisted , TurkeysABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Usage of YouTube as an educational tool is gaining attention in academic research. To date, there has been no study on the content and quality of eye surgery videos on YouTube. The aim of this study was to analyze YouTube videos on phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil. METHODS: We searched for the phrases "small pupil cataract surgery," "small pupil phacoemulsification," "small pupil cataract surgery complications," and "small pupil phacoemulsification complications" in January 2015. Each resulting video was evaluated by all authors, and Krippendorff's alpha was calculated to measure agreement. Videos were classified according to pupil size (small/very small) in the beginning of the surgery, and whether pupillary diameter was large enough to continue surgery safely after pupillary dilation by the surgeon in the video (safe/not safe). Methods of dilatation were also analyzed. Any stated ocular comorbidity or surgical complications were noted. RESULTS: A total of 96 videos were reviewed. No mechanical intervention for pupillary dilatation was performed in 46 videos. Fifty-eight operated eyes had no stated ocular comorbidity. Ninety-five operations ended successfully without major complication. There was fair agreement between the evaluators regarding pupil sizes (Kα = 0.670) but poor agreement regarding safety (Kα = 0.337). CONCLUSIONS: YouTube videos on small pupil phacoemulsification have low complication rates when compared to the literature, although no reliable mechanical dilatation methods are used in almost half of these videos. Until YouTube's place in e-learning becomes clearer, we suggest that viewers be cautious regarding small pupil phacoemulsification videos on YouTube.
