Literature DB >> 22926549

MR image overlay guidance: system evaluation for preclinical use.

Paweena U-Thainual1, Jan Fritz, Choladawan Moonjaita, Tamas Ungi, Aaron Flammang, John A Carrino, Gabor Fichtinger, Iulian Iordachita.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A clinical augmented reality guidance system was developed for MRI-guided musculoskeletal interventions Magnetic Resonance Image Overlay System (MR-IOS). The purpose of this study was to assess MRI compatibility, system accuracy, technical efficacy, and operator performance of the MR-IOS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The impact of the MR-IOS on the MR environment was assessed by measuring image quality with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal intensity uniformity with the system in various on/off states. The system accuracy was assessed with an in-room preclinical experiment by performing 62 needle insertions on a spine phantom by an expert operator measuring entry, depth, angle, and target errors. Technical efficacy and operator performance were tested in laboratory by running an experiment with 40 novice operators (20 using freehand technique versus 20 MR-IOS-guided) with each operator inserting 10 needles into a geometric phantom. Technical efficacy was measured by comparing the success rates of needle insertions between the two operator groups. Operator performance was assessed by comparing total procedure times, total needle path distance, presumed tissue damage, and speed of individual insertions between the two operator groups.
RESULTS: The MR-IOS maximally altered SNR by 2% with no perceptible change in image quality or uniformity. Accuracy assessment showed mean entry error of 1.6 ± 0.6 mm, depth error of 0.7 ± 0.5 mm, angle error of 1.5 ± 1.1°, and target error of 1.9 ± 0.8 mm. Technical efficacy showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.031) between success rates (freehand 35.0% vs. MR-IOS 80.95%). Operator performance showed: mean total procedure time of 40.3 ± 4.4 (s) for freehand and 37.0 ± 3.7 (s) for MR-IOS (p = 0.584), needle path distances of 152.6 ± 15.0 mm for freehand and 116.9 ± 8.7 mm for MR-IOS (p = 0.074), presumed tissue damage of 7,417.2 ± 955.6 mm(2) for freehand and 6062.2 ± 678.5 mm(2) for MR-IOS (p = 0.347), and speed of insertion 5.9 ± 0.4 mm/s for freehand and 4.3 ± 0.3 mm/s for MR-IOS (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: The MR-IOS is compatible within a clinical MR imaging environment, accurate for needle placement, technically efficacious, and improves operator performance over the unassisted insertion technique. The MR-IOS was found to be suitable for further testing in a clinical setting.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22926549     DOI: 10.1007/s11548-012-0788-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg        ISSN: 1861-6410            Impact factor:   2.924


  6 in total

1.  Augmented reality visualization with image overlay for MRI-guided intervention: accuracy for lumbar spinal procedures with a 1.5-T MRI system.

Authors:  Jan Fritz; Paweena U-Thainual; Tamas Ungi; Aaron J Flammang; Nathan B Cho; Gabor Fichtinger; Iulian I Iordachita; John A Carrino
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Validation system of MR image overlay and other needle insertion techniques.

Authors:  Gregory S Fischer; Eva Dyer; Csaba Csoma; Anton Deguet; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2007

Review 3.  MRI image overlay: application to arthrography needle insertion.

Authors:  Gregory S Fischer; Anton Deguet; Csaba Csoma; Russell H Taylor; Laura Fayad; John A Carrino; S James Zinreich; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  Comput Aided Surg       Date:  2007-01

4.  The effect of augmented reality training on percutaneous needle placement in spinal facet joint injections.

Authors:  Caitlin T Yeo; Tamas Ungi; Paweena U-Thainual; Andras Lasso; Robert C McGraw; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Navigation with electromagnetic tracking for interventional radiology procedures: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Bradford J Wood; Hui Zhang; Amir Durrani; Neil Glossop; Sohan Ranjan; David Lindisch; Eliott Levy; Filip Banovac; Joern Borgert; Sascha Krueger; Jochen Kruecker; Anand Viswanathan; Kevin Cleary
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.464

6.  Perk Station--Percutaneous surgery training and performance measurement platform.

Authors:  Siddharth Vikal; Paweena U-Thainual; John A Carrino; Iulian Iordachita; Gregory S Fischer; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 4.790

  6 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Augmented Reality (AR) in Orthopedics: Current Applications and Future Directions.

Authors:  Andrew A Furman; Wellington K Hsu
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2021-11-09

Review 2.  MRI-guided sacroiliac joint injections in children and adults: current practice and future developments.

Authors:  Danoob Dalili; Amanda Isaac; Jan Fritz
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 2.128

3.  MR-guided perineural injection of the ganglion impar: technical considerations and feasibility.

Authors:  David R Marker; Paweena U-Thainual; Tamas Ungi; Aaron J Flammang; Gabor Fichtinger; Iulian I Iordachita; John A Carrino; Jan Fritz
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  Opportunities and challenges of using augmented reality and heads-up display in orthopaedic surgery: A narrative review.

Authors:  Joon Ha; Priya Parekh; David Gamble; James Masters; Peter Jun; Thomas Hester; Timothy Daniels; Mansur Halai
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-05-05

5.  Applicability of augmented reality in orthopedic surgery - A systematic review.

Authors:  Lukas Jud; Javad Fotouhi; Octavian Andronic; Alexander Aichmair; Greg Osgood; Nassir Navab; Mazda Farshad
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 6.  XR (Extended Reality: Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality) Technology in Spine Medicine: Status Quo and Quo Vadis.

Authors:  Tadatsugu Morimoto; Takaomi Kobayashi; Hirohito Hirata; Koji Otani; Maki Sugimoto; Masatsugu Tsukamoto; Tomohito Yoshihara; Masaya Ueno; Masaaki Mawatari
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 4.241

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.