Frederick Van Gestel1,2, Taylor Frantz3,4, Cédric Vannerom1,2, Anouk Verhellen5, Anthony G Gallagher6, Shirley A Elprama5, An Jacobs5, Ronald Buyl7, Michaël Bruneau1, Bart Jansen3,4, Jef Vandemeulebroucke3,4, Thierry Scheerlinck8,9, Johnny Duerinck1,2. 1. 1Department of Neurosurgery, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels. 2. 2Research Group Center For Neurosciences (C4N-NEUR), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels. 3. 3Department of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels. 4. 4imec, Leuven. 5. 5Department of Studies on Media, Innovation & Technology (SMIT), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels. 6. 6Orsi Academy, Melle. 7. 7Department of Public Health, Research Group Biostatistics and Medical Informatics (BISI), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels. 8. 8Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels; and. 9. 9Research Group Beeldvorming en Fysische wetenschappen (BEFY-ORTHO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The traditional freehand technique for external ventricular drain (EVD) placement is most frequently used, but remains the primary risk factor for inaccurate drain placement. As this procedure could benefit from image guidance, the authors set forth to demonstrate the impact of augmented-reality (AR) assistance on the accuracy and learning curve of EVD placement compared with the freehand technique. METHODS: Sixteen medical students performed a total of 128 EVD placements on a custom-made phantom head, both before and after receiving a standardized training session. They were guided by either the freehand technique or by AR, which provided an anatomical overlay and tailored guidance for EVD placement through inside-out infrared tracking. The outcome was quantified by the metric accuracy of EVD placement as well as by its clinical quality. RESULTS: The mean target error was significantly impacted by either AR (p = 0.003) or training (p = 0.02) in a direct comparison with the untrained freehand performance. Both untrained (11.9 ± 4.5 mm) and trained (12.2 ± 4.7 mm) AR performances were significantly better than the untrained freehand performance (19.9 ± 4.2 mm), which improved after training (13.5 ± 4.7 mm). The quality of EVD placement as assessed by the modified Kakarla scale (mKS) was significantly impacted by AR guidance (p = 0.005) but not by training (p = 0.07). Both untrained and trained AR performances (59.4% mKS grade 1 for both) were significantly better than the untrained freehand performance (25.0% mKS grade 1). Spatial aptitude testing revealed a correlation between perceptual ability and untrained AR-guided performance (r = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the freehand technique, AR guidance for EVD placement yielded a higher outcome accuracy and quality for procedure novices. With AR, untrained individuals performed as well as trained individuals, which indicates that AR guidance not only improved performance but also positively impacted the learning curve. Future efforts will focus on the translation and evaluation of AR for EVD placement in the clinical setting.
OBJECTIVE: The traditional freehand technique for external ventricular drain (EVD) placement is most frequently used, but remains the primary risk factor for inaccurate drain placement. As this procedure could benefit from image guidance, the authors set forth to demonstrate the impact of augmented-reality (AR) assistance on the accuracy and learning curve of EVD placement compared with the freehand technique. METHODS: Sixteen medical students performed a total of 128 EVD placements on a custom-made phantom head, both before and after receiving a standardized training session. They were guided by either the freehand technique or by AR, which provided an anatomical overlay and tailored guidance for EVD placement through inside-out infrared tracking. The outcome was quantified by the metric accuracy of EVD placement as well as by its clinical quality. RESULTS: The mean target error was significantly impacted by either AR (p = 0.003) or training (p = 0.02) in a direct comparison with the untrained freehand performance. Both untrained (11.9 ± 4.5 mm) and trained (12.2 ± 4.7 mm) AR performances were significantly better than the untrained freehand performance (19.9 ± 4.2 mm), which improved after training (13.5 ± 4.7 mm). The quality of EVD placement as assessed by the modified Kakarla scale (mKS) was significantly impacted by AR guidance (p = 0.005) but not by training (p = 0.07). Both untrained and trained AR performances (59.4% mKS grade 1 for both) were significantly better than the untrained freehand performance (25.0% mKS grade 1). Spatial aptitude testing revealed a correlation between perceptual ability and untrained AR-guided performance (r = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the freehand technique, AR guidance for EVD placement yielded a higher outcome accuracy and quality for procedure novices. With AR, untrained individuals performed as well as trained individuals, which indicates that AR guidance not only improved performance but also positively impacted the learning curve. Future efforts will focus on the translation and evaluation of AR for EVD placement in the clinical setting.