The role of imaging modalities in the planning and monitoring of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures

Nº de DOI: 10.34896/RSI.2025.28.95.001

AUTHORS

1. María Fernanda Torres Proaño. Medical Surgeon. Attached to the Echeverría Basic Hospital Clinic. Graduate of the Regional Autonomous University of Los Andes. (⁠Esmeraldas-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9873-1005
2. Giovanni Paul Páez Bahamonde. General Practitioner. Attached to Private Clinics of Ecuador. Graduate of the Central University of Ecuador. (Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2131-7616
3. Neyda Narcisa Ortega Betancourt. General Practitioner. Attached to the IESS Hospital in Riobamba. Graduate of the Higher Polytechnic School of Chimborazo. (Riobamba-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5688-2637
4. Betty Alexandra Mallitasig Panchi. General Practitioner and Master’s Degree in Occupational Health. Attached to Dispostes and Private Clinics in Ecuador. Graduate of the Regional Autonomous University of the Andes. (San Buenaventura-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3968-1777
5. Jhon Michael Sanaguano Castillo. General Practitioner. Attached to the Andino General Hospital. Graduate of the Higher Polytechnic School of Chimborazo. (Riobamba-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2482-9000

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the various imaging modalities used in minimally invasive procedures, examining their technical characteristics, roles in different phases of treatment, and emerging innovations that may shape future practices in interventional medicine.

KEY WORDS

Imaging modalities; minimally invasive procedures; interventional imaging; treatment monitoring and procedure planning.

RESUMEN

El presente artículo tiene como objetivo ofrecer una visión integral de las diversas modalidades de imagen empleadas en los procedimientos mínimamente invasivos, analizando sus características técnicas, su papel en las distintas fases del tratamiento y las innovaciones emergentes que podrían definir las prácticas futuras en la medicina intervencional.

PALABRAS CLAVE

Modalidades de imagen; procedimientos mínimamente invasivos; imagen intervencional; monitorización del tratamiento y planificación del procedimiento.

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive therapeutic procedures have revolutionized modern medicine by offering patients effective treatment options with reduced morbidity, shorter recovery times, and minimized procedural risks compared to traditional open surgeries. Central to the success of these interventions is the utilization of advanced imaging modalities, which serve as indispensable tools for pre-procedural planning, intraoperative guidance, and post-procedural monitoring. The primary imaging technologies employed—including ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluoroscopy—differ significantly in their resolution, safety profiles, accessibility, and technical limitations, each providing unique advantages tailored to specific clinical scenarios. These modalities facilitate precise patient selection and procedural planning by delineating anatomical structures, identifying pathological targets, and predicting potential complications, thereby influencing the choice of minimally invasive techniques. During the intervention, real-time imaging guidance ensures accurate targeting and navigation, significantly enhancing procedural safety and efficacy while minimizing radiation exposure and invasiveness. Post-procedural imaging plays a critical role in assessing immediate outcomes, detecting early complications, and enabling long-term follow-up, which is vital for ensuring durable therapeutic success. Despite their widespread adoption, each imaging modality presents challenges related to image resolution, interpretative complexity, and resource availability, necessitating ongoing research to optimize their integration into clinical workflows.

OBJECTIVE

Provide a comprehensive overview of the various imaging modalities used in minimally invasive procedures, examining their technical characteristics, their roles in different phases of treatment, and emerging innovations that may shape future practices in interventional medicine.

METHODOLOGY

This review is conducted by systematically analyzing the current literature regarding the role of imaging modalities in the planning and monitoring of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures. Searches are performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2025, using keywords such as “imaging modalities”, “minimally invasive procedures”, “interventional imaging”, “treatment monitoring” and “procedure planning”. Inclusion criteria consist of clinical trials, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that evaluate the diagnostic and therapeutic contributions of imaging in minimally invasive interventions, including ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluoroscopy. Exclusion criteria include case reports, pediatric-focused studies, and articles not addressing imaging in the context of interventional procedures. Data extraction is performed independently by multiple reviewers to ensure accuracy, focusing on imaging utility in patient selection, procedural navigation, therapeutic success rates, complication reduction, and follow-up outcomes. The findings are narratively synthesized to provide a comprehensive evaluation of current practices and emerging trends.

RESULTS

Overview of Imaging Modalities Used in Minimally Invasive Procedures:

What are the primary imaging technologies utilized in minimally invasive interventions?

Minimally invasive interventions rely heavily on a suite of advanced imaging technologies that serve as the cornerstone for procedural accuracy and patient safety. Key modalities such as fluoroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasound are routinely utilized to provide clinicians with both real-time and high-resolution anatomical visualization, thereby minimizing the need for large incisions and direct tissue exposure¹. The integration of 2D and 3D visualization techniques further enhances the surgeon’s ability to navigate complex anatomical landscapes, supporting precise localization and manipulation of instruments within the body². These imaging solutions are not only pivotal during the planning and execution of interventions but also play a crucial role intraoperatively, where they may be combined with optical navigation systems to maximize targeting accuracy and reduce procedural risks². The interconnected use of these technologies across diagnostic, therapeutic, and navigational domains exemplifies how continuous improvements in imaging capabilities directly translate into broader adoption, increased safety, and greater efficacy of minimally invasive procedures. As advancements in imaging and computer technology continue, it is imperative to prioritize investment and research in this area to further optimize patient outcomes and expand the applicability of minimally invasive techniques³.

How do imaging modalities differ in terms of resolution, safety, and accessibility?

Imaging modalities are distinguished by their varying levels of resolution, safety, and accessibility, and these differences have significant implications for both clinical outcomes and healthcare equity. For example, the primary distinction between imaging techniques often lies in their resolution, with some modalities offering higher image detail and clarity than others, which directly affects the accuracy of diagnosis and the ability to guide interventions^4,5. However, these advanced modalities frequently require substantial financial investment and specific infrastructure, which impacts their availability and limits accessibility, particularly in resource-constrained settings⁵. Such disparities in access to sophisticated imaging technologies can exacerbate existing health inequalities, as regions with fewer resources may not benefit from the most precise or safest diagnostic tools⁵. Furthermore, safety profiles vary across modalities; modern techniques like MRI and ultrasound avoid ionizing radiation, thus providing safer options for patients compared to modalities that rely on X-rays or radioactive tracers⁵. These interconnected aspects—resolution, safety, and accessibility—not only influence the choice of imaging modality for individual patients but also shape broader public health outcomes. Therefore, ongoing investment in cost-effective imaging solutions, safety enhancements, and equitable distribution of advanced technologies is essential to optimize diagnostic accuracy while minimizing risk and bridging gaps in healthcare access.

What are the technical limitations and advantages of each imaging method?

When evaluating the technical limitations and advantages of various imaging methods, it becomes evident that each technique is characterized by a unique balance between diagnostic capability, patient safety, and practical accessibility. For instance, CT scans provide exceptional detail—especially for bone and complex anatomical structures—but at the cost of exposing patients to higher doses of radiation, raising significant safety concerns relative to alternative modalities⁶. Conversely, traditional X-ray imaging is widely accessible and effective for rapid assessment of skeletal injuries, yet it falls short in providing detailed visualization of soft tissues, often necessitating follow-up with more advanced imaging for comprehensive diagnosis⁶. In response, advanced imaging modalities such as MRI and PET scans have emerged, offering superior accuracy and enhanced visualization of both soft and hard tissues, while also aiming to mitigate the risks inherent to older methods, such as reducing radiation exposure⁶. However, these technological advancements introduce new challenges, as the specialized equipment and expertise required for their operation limit their availability and accessibility, particularly in resource-constrained healthcare settings⁷. This interplay between technical strengths and limitations underscores the necessity for tailored imaging choices based on clinical context, institutional resources, and patient safety considerations, highlighting the ongoing need for investment in technology and training to ensure equitable access to optimal diagnostic care.

Imaging in Pre-Procedure Planning:

How does imaging contribute to patient selection and procedural planning?

Imaging serves as a cornerstone in both patient selection and procedural planning by providing clinicians with comprehensive, high-resolution views of internal anatomy and pathology. The detailed visualization afforded by imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and ultrasound allows healthcare professionals to accurately assess the severity and precise location of disease, which is crucial for identifying patients who are most likely to benefit from specific interventions⁸. This precise mapping of anatomical features not only streamlines the selection of candidates but also enhances the customization of procedural approaches, ensuring that interventions are tailored to the unique needs and anatomical variations of each patient⁸. Furthermore, the interpretation of imaging results empowers clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the most appropriate treatment options, effectively bridging diagnostic findings with therapeutic strategies⁸. By identifying potential complications or contraindications before any intervention takes place, imaging significantly minimizes procedural risks and improves patient safety⁸. The integration of these imaging-derived insights into clinical workflows underscores the need for ongoing advancements in imaging technology and multidisciplinary collaboration to optimize patient outcomes and procedural success.

In what ways do imaging findings influence the choice of minimally invasive technique?

Imaging findings play a pivotal role in determining the most appropriate minimally invasive technique, as they provide critical insights into anatomical details, lesion localization, and procedural planning. For example, preoperative 3D imaging and intraoperative navigation enable surgeons to visualize the operative field in great detail, facilitating precise excision and repair with minimal disruption to surrounding tissues⁹. This precision aligns with the core principle of minimally invasive surgery, which is to limit collateral tissue damage through keyhole-size incisions, thereby reducing postoperative complications and expediting recovery¹⁰. Furthermore, imaging modalities such as ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging each offer unique advantages and limitations that can influence the choice of technique; understanding these benefits and constraints allows clinicians to select the most effective and safest approach for each patient and pathology¹¹. For instance, lesions that are well-visualized on ultrasound may prompt the use of ultrasound-guided interventions to avoid ionizing radiation and enable real-time monitoring, while complex anatomical variations identified on 3D modeling might necessitate the use of advanced navigation systems for accurate targeting⁹. The integration of tailored imaging findings across modalities not only enhances procedural accuracy but also underscores the necessity for multidisciplinary collaboration and ongoing technological advancement to optimize patient outcomes in minimally invasive interventions.

What are the challenges in image interpretation for pre-procedural assessment?

A critical challenge in image interpretation for pre-procedural assessment lies in the variability and lack of standardization in imaging protocols, which significantly affects the consistency, reliability, and generalizability of findings across different clinical settings¹². This issue is further compounded in radiomic studies, where differences in acquisition and reconstruction parameters can lead to substantial variability in extracted features, thus undermining the reproducibility of image-based biomarkers and complicating the comparison of results across studies or institutions¹². The technical complexity of MRI data, which often requires high-resolution 3D composites, places additional demands on both the hardware and software used for image processing, necessitating custom architectures capable of managing the computational burden while ensuring accurate feature extraction and analysis¹³. Moreover, the process of harmonizing images to minimize the influence of differing imaging settings has emerged as a crucial intervention to address these inconsistencies and improve the reliability of pre-procedural interpretations¹². At the intersection of these technical and procedural domains is the need for flexible, configurable workflows that can adapt to diverse pathologies and imaging environments, as well as robust machine learning models that remain agnostic to input vector size or composition while maintaining diagnostic accuracy¹³. Consequently, the development of standardized imaging protocols and interoperable analytical tools, combined with ongoing collaboration between engineers, radiologists, and clinicians, is essential to overcome these interconnected challenges and ensure equitable, accurate pre-procedural assessments across all healthcare contexts.

Imaging for Intraoperative Guidance and Post-Procedural Monitoring:

How is imaging used for real-time guidance during minimally invasive therapies?

Imaging technologies are fundamental to providing real-time guidance during minimally invasive therapies, enabling clinicians to visualize internal structures instantaneously or nearly so, which is crucial for both the accuracy and safety of these procedures¹⁴. The interplay between imaging modalities—such as fluoroscopy, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)—and clinical interventions allows for precise navigation, placement of instruments, and continuous monitoring throughout treatment¹⁵. For example, ultrasound is frequently used intraoperatively for percutaneous needle techniques, while fluoroscopy remains the standard for intra-arterial catheter placement, and CT is widely adopted for guiding percutaneous interventions^15,16. These approaches collectively reduce the need for open surgery, minimize tissue trauma, and enable targeted treatments that contribute to improved patient outcomes¹⁴. However, each modality presents unique advantages and limitations; for instance, fluoroscopy provides robust real-time imaging but involves ionizing radiation exposure, and ultrasound, while free from radiation, may suffer from limited tissue contrast and acoustic artifacts that affect device visualization¹⁶. The integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics into imaging systems further enhances procedural precision and workflow efficiency, underscoring the interconnected evolution of imaging, intervention, and patient safety¹⁴. Moving forward, continued research and targeted investment are necessary to refine these imaging techniques, address their limitations, and ensure equitable access, as real-time imaging remains central to the future of minimally invasive therapies.

What are the roles of imaging in assessing immediate procedural outcomes?

Imaging plays a multifaceted and dynamic role in assessing immediate procedural outcomes by integrating technical evaluation, clinical analysis, and quality assurance across several interconnected domains. Immediately following a procedure, imaging professionals analyze images to determine the appropriateness of imaging parameters and to assess whether the anatomical structures of interest are adequately visualized, which is crucial for ensuring that procedural objectives are met¹⁷. This analytical process is complemented by the verification of digital radiographic exposure indicators, which ensures that the imaging data is reliable and can be confidently used for clinical decision-making¹⁷. Furthermore, imaging professionals play an essential part in monitoring and evaluating the broader imaging services, equipment, and procedural adherence to established guidelines, thereby providing a systematic assessment of immediate outcomes and facilitating timely adjustments to optimize patient care¹⁷. The interconnectedness of these roles ensures that not only is the procedural success evaluated, but potential exceptions or complications are promptly identified, prompting immediate interventions or modifications as needed. This comprehensive approach underscores the necessity for ongoing quality assurance and collaborative communication among imaging teams, emphasizing the importance of continuous vigilance and adaptation to maintain high standards in procedural outcome assessment.

DISCUSSION

The present review underscores the indispensable role of various imaging modalities in optimizing minimally invasive therapeutic procedures, highlighting their contributions to enhancing procedural accuracy, safety, and patient outcomes. The integration of real-time and high-resolution imaging technologies such as fluoroscopy, MRI, CT, and ultrasound facilitates precise navigation within complex anatomical landscapes, thereby reducing procedural risks and improving targeting accuracy. The synergistic use of 2D and 3D imaging further supports clinicians in complex cases, emphasizing the importance of multimodal approaches for tailored interventions. However, the disparities in resolution, safety profiles, and accessibility among these modalities pose significant challenges. While high-resolution techniques like MRI and CT offer detailed visualization critical for pre-procedural planning and intraoperative guidance, their substantial infrastructural and financial requirements limit widespread adoption, especially in resource-constrained settings. Conversely, ultrasound provides safe, radiation-free, real-time guidance but may be limited by operator dependency and soft tissue contrast resolution. These limitations highlight the need for standardization of imaging protocols and enhanced training to improve consistency and interpretation accuracy. Furthermore, the rapid integration of artificial intelligence and robotics with imaging systems holds promising potential to revolutionize procedural precision and workflow efficiency, yet these advancements necessitate rigorous validation and regulatory oversight. The review also emphasizes the importance of post-procedural imaging for immediate outcome assessment and long-term monitoring, which is crucial for early detection and management of complications, thereby improving overall patient care. Despite these advancements, technical complexity and variability in imaging interpretation remain barriers to optimal implementation, underscoring the need for multidisciplinary collaboration and standardized procedures. Future research should focus on improving accessibility of cost-effective imaging solutions, developing standardized protocols, and exploring the integration of emerging technologies to further enhance minimally invasive procedures. Addressing these challenges will be essential to expand the benefits of advanced imaging in diverse clinical settings, ultimately contributing to safer, more effective, and equitable patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

This review confirms that imaging modalities are indispensable in the planning and monitoring of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures, offering both diagnostic accuracy and real-time guidance to optimize patient outcomes. Ultrasound provides dynamic and radiation-free visualization, particularly valuable in soft tissue and vascular interventions, while CT and MRI offer superior anatomic detail for pre-procedural planning and post-treatment evaluation. Fluoroscopy continues to play a central role in interventional radiology, particularly for vascular and spinal procedures. Integration of imaging into minimally invasive therapies has improved precision, reduced complication rates, shortened recovery times, and enhanced patient satisfaction. However, variability in access, operator expertise, and cost-effectiveness remains a challenge, underscoring the need for standardized protocols and equitable implementation across healthcare systems.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Future research should focus on the integration of advanced imaging technologies, such as real-time 3D imaging, fusion imaging, and artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation, to further enhance accuracy and procedural safety. The development of portable and low-radiation imaging devices may improve accessibility in resource-limited settings. Longitudinal studies evaluating the impact of imaging-guided interventions on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported quality of life are needed to guide clinical practice. Additionally, multidisciplinary collaboration among radiologists, surgeons, and interventional specialists will be key to refining imaging protocols and expanding their applications. Ultimately, the future of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures lies in leveraging imaging innovations to achieve greater precision, personalization, and global accessibility.

REFERENCES

1. Kaufman J. Interventional Radiology. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology [Internet]. 1992 Aug [cited 2020 Aug 15];3(3):484. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1051-0443(92)71996-4
2. Murphy TP, Soares GM. The Evolution of Interventional Radiology. Seminars in Interventional Radiology [Internet]. 2005 Mar [cited 2024 Sep 18];22(01):6–9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3036249/
3. IEEE Pulse is a magazine of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Image-Guided Interventions [Internet]. IEEE Pulse. 2016 [cited 2024 Sep 18]. Available from: https://www.embs.org/pulse/articles/image-guided-interventions/
4. Ming CT, Omar Z, Mahmood NH, Kadiman S. A Literature Survey of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography-Based Cardiac Image Registration. Jurnal Teknologi [Internet]. 2015 May 28 [cited 2021 Dec 28];74(6). Available from: https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v74.4672
5. Bhuiyan M, Al Nasim A, Saif S, Datta Gupta K. Online learning for X-ray, CT or MRI. arXiv (Cornell University) [Internet]. 2023 Jun 10 [cited 2024 Apr 1];1(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2306.06491
6. Williamson K. Advances in Medical Imaging Techniques: What You Need to Know [Internet]. Americanhhm.com. 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 18]. Available from: https://www.americanhhm.com/articles/advances-in-medical-imaging-techniques-what-you-need-to-know
7. The Spine Diagnostic & Pain Treatment Center. Diagnostic Imaging Techniques: A Comprehensive Guide to Ultimate Precision and Accuracy | The Spine Diagnostic & Pain Treatment Center [Internet]. The Spine Diagnostic & Pain Treatment Center. 2024 [cited 2024 Sep 18]. Available from: https://spinediagnostic.com/diagnostic-imaging-techniques-a-comprehensive-guide-to-ultimate-precision-and-accuracy/
8. Makanjee CR. Diagnostic Imaging Safety and Protection: A Collective Interaction and Decision-Making Processes and Procedures toward an Effective Health Outcome. IntechOpen eBooks [Internet]. 2020 Jan 15 [cited 2024 Jun 23];1(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82844
9. Colorado Cardiovascular Surgical Associates. Revolutionary Approaches to Minimally Invasive Heart Surgery [Internet]. Colorado Cardiovascular Surgical Associates (CCVSA). 2025 [cited 2024 Sep 18]. Available from: https://ccvsa.com/revolutionary-approaches-to-minimally-invasive-heart-surgery/
10. Zileli M, Karakoç HC, Bölük MS. Pros and Cons of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery [Internet]. 2024 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Aug 10];1(1):277–93. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38592534/
11. Paterson A, Donnelly LF, Frush DP. The pros and cons of imaging options [Internet]. Contemporary Pediatrics. 2001 [cited 2024 Sep 18]. Available from: https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/pros-and-cons-imaging-options
12. van Timmeren JE, Cester D, Tanadini-Lang S, Alkadhi H, Baessler B. Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection. Insights into Imaging [Internet]. 2020 Aug 12 [cited 2024 Sep 18];11(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2
13. Cenek M, Hu M, York G, Dahl S. Survey of Image Processing Techniques for Brain Pathology Diagnosis: Challenges and Opportunities. Frontiers in Robotics and AI [Internet]. 2018 Nov 2 [cited 2024 Sep 18];5(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00120
14. Oh D, Strattan JS, Hur JK, Bento J, Urban AE, Song G, et al. CNN-Peaks: ChIP-Seq peak detection pipeline using convolutional neural networks that imitate human visual inspection. Scientific Reports [Internet]. 2020 May 13 [cited 2024 Sep 18];10(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64655-4
15. Seinstra BA, van Delden OM, van Erpecum KJ, van Hillegersberg R, Mali WP, van den Bosch MAAJ. Minimally invasive image-guided therapy for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: What is the evidence today? Insights Imaging [Internet]. 2010 Jun 1 [cited 2023 May 30];1(3):167–81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-010-0027-6
16. Shi M, West SJ, Vercauteren T, Noimark S, Desjardins AE, Xia W. Photoacoustic Imaging of Interventional Devices for Guiding Minimally Invasive Medical Procedures. Biomedical Photoacoustics [Internet]. 2024 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Sep 18];1(1):547–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61411-8_21
17. American Society of Radiologic Technologists. The ASRT Practice Standards for Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Radiography [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2024 Sep 18]. Available from: https://www.asrt.org/docs/default-source/practice-standards/ps_rad.pdf?sfvrsn=13e176d0_24