L Moncharmont1, A Moreau-Gaudry2, M Medici3, I Bricault4. 1. Service de radiologie et d'imagerie médicale, hôpital Nord, CHU de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 9, France. Electronic address: lmoncharmont@chu-grenoble.fr. 2. Unité innovation technologique, centre d'investigation clinique, CHU de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 9, France. Electronic address: Alexandre.Moreau-gaudry@imag.fr. 3. Unité innovation technologique, centre d'investigation clinique, CHU de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 9, France. Electronic address: maud.medici@imag.fr. 4. Service de radiologie et d'imagerie médicale, hôpital Nord, CHU de Grenoble, CS 10217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 9, France; TIMC-IMAG, université Grenoble-Alpes, 38000 Grenoble, France. Electronic address: IBricault@chu-grenoble.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this phantom study was to assess a new real time electromagnetically-guided navigation system and compare it to standard computed tomography (CT) guidance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, comparative study was carried out over a two-day period. Operators without prior experience on the new navigation system sequentially attempted to puncture two 6 mm-diameter targets (one attempt for each target) with out-of-plane trajectories using both the standard CT-guided method and the new navigation station (NAV method). RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis was performed for 54 operators. Twenty-two operators out of 54 (40.7%) reached the target on first attempt with the NAV method versus none (0%) using CT-guidance (P<0.001). The median distance of the puncture from the center of the target was 3.7mm [Q1-Q3=2-6.7] using NAV versus 15 mm [10-20] using CT-guidance (P<0.001). Overall planning and puncture time were shorter using NAV: 76s [50-118] versus 214s [181-264] using CT-guidance (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Novice operators consistently performed faster and more accurate phantom punctures with out-of-plane trajectories using the electromagnetically-guided navigation system than with the standard CT-guided method.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this phantom study was to assess a new real time electromagnetically-guided navigation system and compare it to standard computed tomography (CT) guidance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, comparative study was carried out over a two-day period. Operators without prior experience on the new navigation system sequentially attempted to puncture two 6 mm-diameter targets (one attempt for each target) with out-of-plane trajectories using both the standard CT-guided method and the new navigation station (NAV method). RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis was performed for 54 operators. Twenty-two operators out of 54 (40.7%) reached the target on first attempt with the NAV method versus none (0%) using CT-guidance (P<0.001). The median distance of the puncture from the center of the target was 3.7mm [Q1-Q3=2-6.7] using NAV versus 15 mm [10-20] using CT-guidance (P<0.001). Overall planning and puncture time were shorter using NAV: 76s [50-118] versus 214s [181-264] using CT-guidance (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Novice operators consistently performed faster and more accurate phantom punctures with out-of-plane trajectories using the electromagnetically-guided navigation system than with the standard CT-guided method.
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: R C Rouchy; A Moreau-Gaudry; E Chipon; S Aubry; L Pazart; B Lapuyade; M Durand; M Hajjam; S Pottier; B Renard; R Logier; X Orry; A Cherifi; E Quehen; G Kervio; O Favelle; F Patat; E De Kerviler; C Hughes; M Medici; J Ghelfi; A Mounier; I Bricault Journal: Trials Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 2.279