Literature DB >> 32734314

Smartphone- versus smartglasses-based augmented reality (AR) for percutaneous needle interventions: system accuracy and feasibility study.

Ming Li1, Reza Seifabadi2, Dilara Long2, Quirina De Ruiter2, Nicole Varble2,3, Rachel Hecht2, Ayele H Negussie2, Venkatesh Krishnasamy2, Sheng Xu2, Bradford J Wood2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the system accuracy and needle placement performance of smartphone- and smartglasses-based augmented reality (AR) for percutaneous needle interventions.
METHODS: An AR platform was developed to enable the superimposition of annotated anatomy and a planned needle trajectory onto a patient in real time. The system accuracy of the AR display on smartphone (iPhone7) and smartglasses (HoloLens1) devices was evaluated on a 3D-printed phantom. The target overlay error was measured as the distance between actual and virtual targets (n = 336) on the AR display, derived from preprocedural CT. The needle overlay angle was measured as the angular difference between actual and virtual needles (n = 12) on the AR display. Three operators each used the iPhone (n = 8), HoloLens (n = 8) and CT-guided freehand (n = 8) to guide needles into targets in a phantom. Needle placement error was measured with post-placement CT. Needle placement time was recorded from needle puncture to navigation completion.
RESULTS: The target overlay error of the iPhone was comparable to the HoloLens (1.75 ± 0.59 mm, 1.74 ± 0.86 mm, respectively, p = 0.9). The needle overlay angle of the iPhone and HoloLens was similar (0.28 ± 0.32°, 0.41 ± 0.23°, respectively, p = 0.26). The iPhone-guided needle placements showed reduced error compared to the HoloLens (2.58 ± 1.04 mm, 3.61 ± 2.25 mm, respectively, p = 0.05) and increased time (87 ± 17 s, 71 ± 27 s, respectively, p = 0.02). Both AR devices reduced placement error compared to CT-guided freehand (15.92 ± 8.06 mm, both p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: An augmented reality platform employed on smartphone and smartglasses devices may provide accurate display and navigation guidance for percutaneous needle-based interventions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Augmented reality; HoloLens; Needle guidance; Smartglasses; Smartphone; iPhone

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32734314      PMCID: PMC8985545          DOI: 10.1007/s11548-020-02235-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg        ISSN: 1861-6410            Impact factor:   2.924


  21 in total

1.  Image overlay guidance for needle insertion in CT scanner.

Authors:  Gabor Fichtinger; Anton Deguet; Ken Masamune; Emese Balogh; Gregory S Fischer; Herve Mathieu; Russell H Taylor; S James Zinreich; Laura M Fayad
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.538

Review 2.  A guide to stereoscopic 3D displays in medicine.

Authors:  Robert T Held; Tiffany T Hui
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-06-11       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 3.  Robotic systems for percutaneous needle-guided interventions.

Authors:  Joachim Kettenbach; Gernot Kronreif
Journal:  Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 2.442

4.  Perceptual Limits of Optical See-Through Visors for Augmented Reality Guidance of Manual Tasks.

Authors:  Sara Condino; Marina Carbone; Roberta Piazza; Mauro Ferrari; Vincenzo Ferrari
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Comparison of Projective Augmented Reality Concepts to Support Medical Needle Insertion.

Authors:  Florian Heinrich; Fabian Joeres; Kai Lawonn; Christian Hansen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 4.579

6.  A Survey of Calibration Methods for Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Displays.

Authors:  Jens Grubert; Yuta Itoh; Kenneth Moser; J Edward Swan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 4.579

Review 7.  Augmented and Mixed Reality: Technologies for Enhancing the Future of IR.

Authors:  Brian J Park; Stephen J Hunt; Charles Martin; Gregory J Nadolski; Bradford J Wood; Terence P Gade
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 3.464

8.  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

9.  Through the HoloLens™ looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3D vascular models with perforating vessels.

Authors:  Philip Pratt; Matthew Ives; Graham Lawton; Jonathan Simmons; Nasko Radev; Liana Spyropoulou; Dimitri Amiras
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2018-01-31

10.  Augmented reality for interventional oncology: proof-of-concept study of a novel high-end guidance system platform.

Authors:  Marco Solbiati; Katia M Passera; Alessandro Rotilio; Francesco Oliva; Ilaria Marre; S Nahum Goldberg; Tiziana Ierace; Luigi Solbiati
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2018-07-31
View more
  1 in total

1.  Mixed Reality Needle Guidance Application on Smartglasses Without Pre-procedural CT Image Import with Manually Matching Coordinate Systems.

Authors:  Satoru Morita; Kazufumi Suzuki; Takahiro Yamamoto; Motoki Kunihara; Hiroyuki Hashimoto; Kayo Ito; Shuhei Fujii; Jun Ohya; Ken Masamune; Shuji Sakai
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 2.740

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.