Deqiang Xiao1,2, Yong Li3, Huoling Luo1,2, Yanfang Zhang4, Xuejun Guo5, Huimin Zheng1, Qingmao Hu1,2, Fucang Jia6,7. 1. Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 1068, Xueyuan Avenue, Xili Nanshan, Shenzhen, China. 2. Shenzhen College of Advanced Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 1068, Xueyuan Avenue, Xili Nanshan, Shenzhen, China. 3. Department of Interventional Radiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, No. 1017, Dongmen North Rd., Luohu, Shenzhen, China. 4. Department of Interventional Radiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, No. 1017, Dongmen North Rd., Luohu, Shenzhen, China. szjieru0755@126.com. 5. Department of Radiology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, No. 1120, Lianhua Rd, Futian, Shenzhen, China. 6. Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 1068, Xueyuan Avenue, Xili Nanshan, Shenzhen, China. fc.jia@siat.ac.cn. 7. Shenzhen College of Advanced Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 1068, Xueyuan Avenue, Xili Nanshan, Shenzhen, China. fc.jia@siat.ac.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of a Kinect-Optical navigation system with an electromagnetic (EM) navigation system for percutaneous liver needle intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five beagles with nine artificial tumors were used for validation. The Veran IG4 EM navigation system and a custom-made Kinect-Optical navigation system were used. Needle insertions into each tumor were conducted with these two guidance methods. The target positioning error (TPE) and the time cost of the puncture procedures were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 18 needle insertions were performed to evaluate the navigation accuracy of the two guidance approaches. The targeting error was 6.78 ± 3.22 mm and 8.72 ± 3.5 mm for the Kinect-Optical navigation system and the EM navigation system, respectively. There is no statistically significant difference in the TPE between the Kinect-Optical navigation system and the EM navigation system (p = 0.229). The processing time with the Kinect-Optical system (10 min) is similar to that of the Veran IG4 system (12 min). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the Kinect-Optical navigation system is comparable to that of the EM navigation system.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of a Kinect-Optical navigation system with an electromagnetic (EM) navigation system for percutaneous liver needle intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five beagles with nine artificial tumors were used for validation. The Veran IG4 EM navigation system and a custom-made Kinect-Optical navigation system were used. Needle insertions into each tumor were conducted with these two guidance methods. The target positioning error (TPE) and the time cost of the puncture procedures were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 18 needle insertions were performed to evaluate the navigation accuracy of the two guidance approaches. The targeting error was 6.78 ± 3.22 mm and 8.72 ± 3.5 mm for the Kinect-Optical navigation system and the EM navigation system, respectively. There is no statistically significant difference in the TPE between the Kinect-Optical navigation system and the EM navigation system (p = 0.229). The processing time with the Kinect-Optical system (10 min) is similar to that of the Veran IG4 system (12 min). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the Kinect-Optical navigation system is comparable to that of the EM navigation system.