Literature DB >> 27074422

Comparison of Two Electromagnetic Navigation Systems For CT-Guided Punctures: A Phantom Study.

D Putzer1, D Arco1, B Schamberger1, F Schanda1, J Mahlknecht1, G Widmann1, P Schullian1, W Jaschke1, R Bale1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared the targeting accuracy and reliability of two different electromagnetic navigation systems for manually guided punctures in a phantom.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT data sets of a gelatin filled plexiglass phantom were acquired with 1, 3, and 5 mm slice thickness. After paired-point registration of the phantom, a total of 480 navigated stereotactic needle insertions were performed manually using electromagnetic guidance with two different navigation systems (Medtronic Stealth Station: AxiEM; Philips: PercuNav). A control CT was obtained to measure the target positioning error between the planned and actual needle trajectory.
RESULTS: Using the Philips PercuNav, the accomplished Euclidean distances were 4.42 ± 1.33 mm, 4.26 ± 1.32 mm, and 4.46 ± 1.56 mm at a slice thickness of 1, 3, and 5 mm, respectively. The mean lateral positional errors were 3.84 ± 1.59 mm, 3.84 ± 1.43 mm, and 3.81 ± 1.71 mm, respectively. Using the Medtronic Stealth Station AxiEM, the Euclidean distances were 3.86 ± 2.28 mm, 3.74 ± 2.1 mm, and 4.81 ± 2.07 mm at a slice thickness of 1, 3, and 5 mm, respectively. The mean lateral positional errors were 3.29 ± 1.52 mm, 3.16 ± 1.52 mm, and 3.93 ± 1.68 mm, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Both electromagnetic navigation devices showed excellent results regarding puncture accuracy in a phantom model. The Medtronic Stealth Station AxiEM provided more accurate results in comparison to the Philips PercuNav for CT with 3 mm slice thickness. One potential benefit of electromagnetic navigation devices is the absence of visual contact between the instrument and the sensor system. Due to possible interference with metal objects, incorrect position sensing may occur. In contrast to the phantom study, patient movement including respiration has to be compensated for in the clinical setting. KEY POINTS: • Commercially available electromagnetic navigation systems have the potential to improve the therapeutic range for CT guided percutaneous procedures by comparing the needle placement accuracy on the basis of planning CT data sets with different slice thickness. Citation Format: • Putzer D, Arco D, Schamberger B et al. Comparison of Two Electromagnetic Navigation Systems For CT-Guided Punctures: A Phantom Study. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2016; 188: 470 - 478. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27074422     DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-103691

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rofo        ISSN: 1438-9010


  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of a novel, patient-mounted system for CT-guided needle navigation-an ex vivo study.

Authors:  Anna Mokry; Florian Willmitzer; Rafael Hostettler; Henning Richter; Patrick Kircher; Sibylle Kneissl; Stephan Wetzel
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 2.804

2.  Three-Dimensional Surface Point Cloud Ultrasound for Better Understanding and Transmission of Ultrasound Scan Information.

Authors:  Joseph Nathaniel Stember
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Comparison of acquisition and iterative reconstruction parameters in abdominal computed tomography-guided procedures: a phantom study.

Authors:  Julien Frandon; Philippe Akessoul; Aymeric Hamard; Edinaud Bezandry; Romaric Loffroy; Takieddine Addala; Martin M Bertrand; Jean-Paul Beregi; Joël Greffier
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-01

4.  Preclinical evaluation of a prototype freehand drill video guidance system for orthopedic surgery.

Authors:  Niral Sheth; Prasad Vagdargi; Alejandro Sisniega; Ali Uneri; Gregory Osgood; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-08-26

5.  Comparison of a Robotic and Patient-Mounted Device for CT-Guided Needle Placement: A Phantom Study.

Authors:  Yannick Scharll; Alexander Mitteregger; Gregor Laimer; Christoph Schwabl; Peter Schullian; Reto Bale
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 4.964

6.  Smartphone Augmented Reality CT-Based Platform for Needle Insertion Guidance: A Phantom Study.

Authors:  Rachel Hecht; Ming Li; Quirina M B de Ruiter; William F Pritchard; Xiaobai Li; Venkatesh Krishnasamy; Wael Saad; John W Karanian; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 2.740

7.  Puncture accuracy of an optical tracked robotic aiming device-a phantom study.

Authors:  Yannick Scharll; Sofia Letrari; Gregor Laimer; Peter Schullian; Reto Bale
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 7.034

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.