PURPOSE: Electromagnetic (EM) tracking of instruments within a clinical setting is notorious for fluctuating measurement performance. Position location measurement uncertainty of an EM system was characterized in various environments, including control, clinical, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and CT scanner environments. Static and dynamic effects of CBCT and CT scanning on EM tracking were evaluated. METHODS: Two guidance devices were designed to solely translate or rotate the sensor in a non-interfering fit to decouple pose-dependent tracking uncertainties. These devices were mounted on a base to allow consistent and repeatable tests when changing environments. Using this method, position and orientation measurement accuracies, precision, and 95 % confidence intervals were assessed. RESULTS: The tracking performance varied significantly as a function of the environment-especially within the CBCT and CT scanners-and sensor pose. In fact, at a fixed sensor position in the clinical environment, the measurement error varied from 0.2 to 2.2 mm depending on sensor orientations. Improved accuracies were observed along the vertical axis of the field generator. Calibration of the measurements improved tracking performance in the CT environment by 50-85 %. CONCLUSION: EM tracking can provide effective assistance to surgeons or interventional radiologists during procedures performed in a clinical or CBCT environment. Applications in the CT scanner demand precalibration to provide acceptable performance.
PURPOSE: Electromagnetic (EM) tracking of instruments within a clinical setting is notorious for fluctuating measurement performance. Position location measurement uncertainty of an EM system was characterized in various environments, including control, clinical, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and CT scanner environments. Static and dynamic effects of CBCT and CT scanning on EM tracking were evaluated. METHODS: Two guidance devices were designed to solely translate or rotate the sensor in a non-interfering fit to decouple pose-dependent tracking uncertainties. These devices were mounted on a base to allow consistent and repeatable tests when changing environments. Using this method, position and orientation measurement accuracies, precision, and 95 % confidence intervals were assessed. RESULTS: The tracking performance varied significantly as a function of the environment-especially within the CBCT and CT scanners-and sensor pose. In fact, at a fixed sensor position in the clinical environment, the measurement error varied from 0.2 to 2.2 mm depending on sensor orientations. Improved accuracies were observed along the vertical axis of the field generator. Calibration of the measurements improved tracking performance in the CT environment by 50-85 %. CONCLUSION: EM tracking can provide effective assistance to surgeons or interventional radiologists during procedures performed in a clinical or CBCT environment. Applications in the CT scanner demand precalibration to provide acceptable performance.
Authors: A Wagner; K Schicho; W Birkfellner; M Figl; R Seemann; F König; Franz Kainberger; R Ewers Journal: Med Phys Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Johann B Hummel; Michael R Bax; Michael L Figl; Yan Kang; Calvin Maurer; Wolfgang W Birkfellner; Helmar Bergmann; Ramin Shahidi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Faustin Stevens; Michael A Conditt; Nikhil Kulkarni; Sabir K Ismaily; Philip C Noble; David R Lionberger Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-05-29 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Andrew W L Dickinson; Michelle L Zec; David R Pichora; Brian J Rasquinha; Randy E Ellis Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Herman Alexander Jaeger; Alfred Michael Franz; Kilian O'Donoghue; Alexander Seitel; Fabian Trauzettel; Lena Maier-Hein; Pádraig Cantillon-Murphy Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Brian J Rasquinha; Michael J Rainbow; Michelle L Zec; David R Pichora; Randy E Ellis Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: J Goerres; A Uneri; M Jacobson; B Ramsay; T De Silva; M Ketcha; R Han; A Manbachi; S Vogt; G Kleinszig; J-P Wolinsky; G Osgood; J H Siewerdsen Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Björn Rath; Malte Asseln; Marcel Betsch; Andreas Prescher; Markus Tingart; Jörg Eschweiler Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 3.411