Jasper Nijkamp1, Bram Schermers2, Sander Schmitz2, Sofieke de Jonge2, Koert Kuhlmann2, Ferdinand van der Heijden3, Jan-Jakob Sonke4, Theo Ruers2. 1. Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.nijkamp@nki.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Robotics and Mechatronics, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the position and orientation accuracy between using one 6-degree of freedom (DOF) electromagnetic (EM) sensor, or the position information of three 5DOF sensors within the scope of tumor tracking. METHODS: The position accuracy of Northern Digital Inc Aurora 5DOF and 6DOF sensors was determined for a table-top field generator (TTFG) up to a distance of 52 cm. For each sensor 716 positions were measured for 10 s at 15 Hz. Orientation accuracy was determined for each of the orthogonal axis at the TTFG distances of 17, 27, 37 and 47 cm. For the 6DOF sensors, orientation was determined for sensors in-line with the orientation axis, and perpendicular. 5DOF orientation accuracy was determined for a theoretical 4 cm tumor. An optical tracking system was used as reference. RESULTS: Position RMSE and jitter were comparable between the sensors and increasing with distance. Jitter was within 0.1 cm SD within 45 cm distance to the TTFG. Position RMSE was approximately 0.1 cm up to 32 cm distance, increasing to 0.4 cm at 52 cm distance. Orientation accuracy of the 6DOF sensor was within 1[Formula: see text], except when the sensor was in-line with the rotation axis perpendicular to the TTFG plane (4[Formula: see text] errors at 47 cm). Orientation accuracy using 5DOF positions was within 1[Formula: see text] up to 37 cm and 2[Formula: see text] at 47 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The position and orientation accuracy of a 6DOF sensor was comparable with a sensor configuration consisting of three 5DOF sensors. To achieve tracking accuracy within 1 mm and 1[Formula: see text], the distance to the TTFG should be limited to approximately 30 cm.
PURPOSE: To compare the position and orientation accuracy between using one 6-degree of freedom (DOF) electromagnetic (EM) sensor, or the position information of three 5DOF sensors within the scope of tumor tracking. METHODS: The position accuracy of Northern Digital Inc Aurora 5DOF and 6DOF sensors was determined for a table-top field generator (TTFG) up to a distance of 52 cm. For each sensor 716 positions were measured for 10 s at 15 Hz. Orientation accuracy was determined for each of the orthogonal axis at the TTFG distances of 17, 27, 37 and 47 cm. For the 6DOF sensors, orientation was determined for sensors in-line with the orientation axis, and perpendicular. 5DOF orientation accuracy was determined for a theoretical 4 cm tumor. An optical tracking system was used as reference. RESULTS: Position RMSE and jitter were comparable between the sensors and increasing with distance. Jitter was within 0.1 cm SD within 45 cm distance to the TTFG. Position RMSE was approximately 0.1 cm up to 32 cm distance, increasing to 0.4 cm at 52 cm distance. Orientation accuracy of the 6DOF sensor was within 1[Formula: see text], except when the sensor was in-line with the rotation axis perpendicular to the TTFG plane (4[Formula: see text] errors at 47 cm). Orientation accuracy using 5DOF positions was within 1[Formula: see text] up to 37 cm and 2[Formula: see text] at 47 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The position and orientation accuracy of a 6DOF sensor was comparable with a sensor configuration consisting of three 5DOF sensors. To achieve tracking accuracy within 1 mm and 1[Formula: see text], the distance to the TTFG should be limited to approximately 30 cm.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electromagnetic tracking; Orientation accuracy; Position accuracy; Tumor tracking
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: T Langø; G A Tangen; R Mårvik; B Ystgaard; Y Yavuz; J H Kaspersen; O V Solberg; T A N Hernes Journal: Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.442
Authors: M Wagner; M Gondan; C Zöllner; J J Wünscher; F Nickel; L Albala; A Groch; S Suwelack; S Speidel; L Maier-Hein; B P Müller-Stich; H G Kenngott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alfred M Franz; Tamás Haidegger; Wolfgang Birkfellner; Kevin Cleary; Terry M Peters; Lena Maier-Hein Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Antje Aschendorff; Wolfgang Maier; Katrin Jaekel; Thomas Wesarg; Susan Arndt; Roland Laszig; Pit Voss; Marc Metzger; Dirk Schulze Journal: Cochlear Implants Int Date: 2009
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: Jasper Nijkamp; Theo J M Ruers; Esther N D Kok; Roeland Eppenga; Koert F D Kuhlmann; Harald C Groen; Ruben van Veen; Jolanda M van Dieren; Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Monique van Leerdam; Doenja M J Lambregts; Wouter J Heerink; Nikie J Hoetjes; Oleksandra Ivashchenko; Geerard L Beets; Arend G J Aalbers Journal: NPJ Precis Oncol Date: 2020-04-08