OBJECTIVES: Accurate laparoscopic liver lesion targeting for biopsy or ablation depends on the ability to merge laparoscopic and ultrasound images with proprioceptive instrument positioning, a skill that can be acquired only through extensive experience. The aim of this study was to determine whether using magnetic positional tracking to provide three-dimensional, real-time guidance improves accuracy during laparoscopic needle placement. METHODS: Magnetic sensors were embedded into a needle and laparoscopic ultrasound transducer. These sensors interrupted the magnetic fields produced by an electromagnetic field generator, allowing for real-time, 3-D guidance on a stereoscopic monitor. Targets measuring 5 mm were embedded 3-5 cm deep in agar and placed inside a laparoscopic trainer box. Two novices (a college student and an intern) and two experts (hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons) targeted the lesions out of the ultrasound plane using either traditional or 3-D guidance. RESULTS: Each subject targeted 22 lesions, 11 with traditional and 11 with the novel guidance (n= 88). Hit rates of 32% (14/44) and 100% (44/44) were observed with the traditional approach and the 3-D magnetic guidance approach, respectively. The novices were essentially unable to hit the targets using the traditional approach, but did not miss using the novel system. The hit rate of experts improved from 59% (13/22) to 100% (22/22) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The novel magnetic 3-D laparoscopic ultrasound guidance results in perfect targeting of 5-mm lesions, even by surgical novices.
OBJECTIVES: Accurate laparoscopic liver lesion targeting for biopsy or ablation depends on the ability to merge laparoscopic and ultrasound images with proprioceptive instrument positioning, a skill that can be acquired only through extensive experience. The aim of this study was to determine whether using magnetic positional tracking to provide three-dimensional, real-time guidance improves accuracy during laparoscopic needle placement. METHODS: Magnetic sensors were embedded into a needle and laparoscopic ultrasound transducer. These sensors interrupted the magnetic fields produced by an electromagnetic field generator, allowing for real-time, 3-D guidance on a stereoscopic monitor. Targets measuring 5 mm were embedded 3-5 cm deep in agar and placed inside a laparoscopic trainer box. Two novices (a college student and an intern) and two experts (hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons) targeted the lesions out of the ultrasound plane using either traditional or 3-D guidance. RESULTS: Each subject targeted 22 lesions, 11 with traditional and 11 with the novel guidance (n= 88). Hit rates of 32% (14/44) and 100% (44/44) were observed with the traditional approach and the 3-D magnetic guidance approach, respectively. The novices were essentially unable to hit the targets using the traditional approach, but did not miss using the novel system. The hit rate of experts improved from 59% (13/22) to 100% (22/22) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The novel magnetic 3-D laparoscopic ultrasound guidance results in perfect targeting of 5-mm lesions, even by surgical novices.
Authors: Michael Rosenthal; Andrei State; Joohi Lee; Gentaro Hirota; Jeremy Ackerman; Kurtis Keller; Etta Pisano; Michael Jiroutek; Keith Muller; Henry Fuchs Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: J Machi; S Uchida; K Sumida; W M Limm; S A Hundahl; A J Oishi; N L Furumoto; R H Oishi Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Joseph F Buell; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Nicholas O'Rourke; David Iannitti; Ibrahim Dagher; Alan J Koffron; Mark Thomas; Brice Gayet; Ho Seong Han; Go Wakabayashi; Giulio Belli; Hironori Kaneko; Chen-Guo Ker; Olivier Scatton; Alexis Laurent; Eddie K Abdalla; Prosanto Chaudhury; Erik Dutson; Clark Gamblin; Michael D'Angelica; David Nagorney; Giuliano Testa; Daniel Labow; Derrik Manas; Ronnie T Poon; Heidi Nelson; Robert Martin; Bryan Clary; Wright C Pinson; John Martinie; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Robert Goldstein; Sasan Roayaie; David Barlet; Joseph Espat; Michael Abecassis; Myrddin Rees; Yuman Fong; Kelly M McMasters; Christoph Broelsch; Ron Busuttil; Jacques Belghiti; Steven Strasberg; Ravi S Chari Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ronnie T Poon; Kelvin K Ng; Chi Ming Lam; Victor Ai; Jimmy Yuen; Sheung Tat Fan; John Wong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Eddie K Abdalla; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Lee M Ellis; Vickie Ellis; Raphael Pollock; Kristine R Broglio; Kenneth Hess; Steven A Curley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Xinyang Liu; William Plishker; Timothy D Kane; David A Geller; Lung W Lau; Jun Tashiro; Karun Sharma; Raj Shekhar Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Christian Erbelding; Alfred Franz; Alexander Seitel; Nasrin Bopp; Konstantin Kohlhase; Frank Grünwald; Lena Maier-Hein Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: T Peter Kingham; Michael A Scherer; Benjamin W Neese; Logan W Clements; James D Stefansic; William R Jarnagin Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Iwan Paolucci; Marius Schwalbe; Gian Andrea Prevost; Anja Lachenmayer; Daniel Candinas; Stefan Weber; Pascale Tinguely Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: David Sindram; Kerri A Simo; Ryan Z Swan; Sharif Razzaque; David J Niemeyer; Ramanathan M Seshadri; Erin Hanna; Iain H McKillop; David A Iannitti; John B Martinie Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 3.647