Dilara J Long1, Ming Li2, Quirina M B De Ruiter1, Rachel Hecht1, Xiaobai Li3, Nicole Varble1,4, Maxime Blain1, Michael T Kassin1, Karun V Sharma5, Shawn Sarin6, Venkatesh P Krishnasamy1, William F Pritchard1, John W Karanian1, Bradford J Wood1, Sheng Xu1. 1. Center for Interventional Oncology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 2. Center for Interventional Oncology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. ming.li@nih.gov. 3. Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Service, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 4. Philips Research of North America, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA. 5. Sheikh Zayed Institute for Pediatric Surgical Innovation, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Department of Interventional Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare needle placement performance using an augmented reality (AR) navigation platform implemented on smartphone or smartglasses devices to that of CBCT-guided fluoroscopy in a phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An AR application was developed to display a planned percutaneous needle trajectory on the smartphone (iPhone7) and smartglasses (HoloLens1) devices in real time. Two AR-guided needle placement systems and CBCT-guided fluoroscopy with navigation software (XperGuide, Philips) were compared using an anthropomorphic phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA). Six interventional radiologists each performed 18 independent needle placements using smartphone (n = 6), smartglasses (n = 6), and XperGuide (n = 6) guidance. Placement error was defined as the distance from the needle tip to the target center. Placement time was recorded. For XperGuide, dose-area product (DAP, mGy*cm2) and fluoroscopy time (sec) were recorded. Statistical comparisons were made using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: The placement error using the smartphone, smartglasses, or XperGuide was similar (3.98 ± 1.68 mm, 5.18 ± 3.84 mm, 4.13 ± 2.38 mm, respectively, p = 0.11). Compared to CBCT-guided fluoroscopy, the smartphone and smartglasses reduced placement time by 38% (p = 0.02) and 55% (p = 0.001), respectively. The DAP for insertion using XperGuide was 3086 ± 2920 mGy*cm2, and no intra-procedural radiation was required for augmented reality. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone- and smartglasses-based augmented reality reduced needle placement time and radiation exposure while maintaining placement accuracy compared to a clinically validated needle navigation platform.
PURPOSE: To compare needle placement performance using an augmented reality (AR) navigation platform implemented on smartphone or smartglasses devices to that of CBCT-guided fluoroscopy in a phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An AR application was developed to display a planned percutaneous needle trajectory on the smartphone (iPhone7) and smartglasses (HoloLens1) devices in real time. Two AR-guided needle placement systems and CBCT-guided fluoroscopy with navigation software (XperGuide, Philips) were compared using an anthropomorphic phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA). Six interventional radiologists each performed 18 independent needle placements using smartphone (n = 6), smartglasses (n = 6), and XperGuide (n = 6) guidance. Placement error was defined as the distance from the needle tip to the target center. Placement time was recorded. For XperGuide, dose-area product (DAP, mGy*cm2) and fluoroscopy time (sec) were recorded. Statistical comparisons were made using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: The placement error using the smartphone, smartglasses, or XperGuide was similar (3.98 ± 1.68 mm, 5.18 ± 3.84 mm, 4.13 ± 2.38 mm, respectively, p = 0.11). Compared to CBCT-guided fluoroscopy, the smartphone and smartglasses reduced placement time by 38% (p = 0.02) and 55% (p = 0.001), respectively. The DAP for insertion using XperGuide was 3086 ± 2920 mGy*cm2, and no intra-procedural radiation was required for augmented reality. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone- and smartglasses-based augmented reality reduced needle placement time and radiation exposure while maintaining placement accuracy compared to a clinically validated needle navigation platform.
Authors: Vincent Van den Bosch; Hizirwan Shukri Salim; Federico Pedersoli; Peter Isfort; Njin-Zu Chen; Otto Stroosma; Philipp Bruners; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 2.797