Literature DB >> 35441961

A hybrid registration method using the mandibular bone surface for electromagnetic navigation in mandibular surgery.

A F de Geer1,2, M J A van Alphen3, C L Zuur1,4, A J Loeve5, R L P van Veen1, M B Karakullukcu1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To utilize navigated mandibular (reconstructive) surgery, accurate registration of the preoperative CT scan with the actual patient in the operating room (OR) is required. In this phantom study, the feasibility of a noninvasive hybrid registration method is assessed. This method consists of a point registration with anatomic landmarks for initialization and a surface registration using the bare mandibular bone surface for optimization.
METHODS: Three mandible phantoms with reference notches on two osteotomy planes were 3D printed. An electromagnetic tracking system in combination with 3D Slicer software was used for navigation. Different configurations, i.e., different surface point areas and number and configuration of surface points, were tested with a dentate phantom (A) in a metal-free environment. To simulate the intraoperative environment and different anatomies, the registration procedure was also performed with an OR bed using the dentate phantom and two (partially) edentulous phantoms with atypical anatomy (B and C). The accuracy of the registration was calculated using the notches on the osteotomy planes and was expressed as the target registration error (TRE). TRE values of less than 2.0 mm were considered as clinically acceptable.
RESULTS: In all experiments, the mean TRE was less than 2.0 mm. No differences were found using different surface point areas or number or configurations of surface points. Registration accuracy in the simulated intraoperative setting was-mean (SD)-0.96 (0.22), 0.93 (0.26), and 1.50 (0.28) mm for phantom A, phantom B, and phantom C.
CONCLUSION: Hybrid registration is a noninvasive method that requires only a small area of the bare mandibular bone surface to obtain high accuracy in phantom setting. Future studies should test this method in clinical setting during actual surgery.
© 2022. CARS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computer-assisted surgery; Electromagnetic tracking; Mandible surgery; Mandibular reconstruction; Registration; Surgical navigation

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35441961     DOI: 10.1007/s11548-022-02610-6

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


  21 in total

1.  Comparison of laser surface scanning and fiducial marker-based registration in frameless stereotaxy. Technical note.

Authors:  Kurt Schicho; Michael Figl; Rudolf Seemann; Markus Donat; Michael L Pretterklieber; Wolfgang Birkfellner; Astrid Reichwein; Felix Wanschitz; Franz Kainberger; Helmar Bergmann; Arne Wagner; Rolf Ewers
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.115

2.  Three-dimensional analysis of the surface registration accuracy of electromagnetic navigation systems in live endoscopic sinus surgery.

Authors:  C M Chang; K M Fang; T W Huang; C T Wang; P W Cheng
Journal:  Rhinology       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.681

3.  Implant Placement Is More Accurate Using Dynamic Navigation.

Authors:  Michael S Block; Robert W Emery; Daniel R Cullum; Ali Sheikh
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 1.895

4.  Computer-Assisted versus Conventional Freehand Mandibular Reconstruction with Fibula Free Flap: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Warit Powcharoen; Wei-Fa Yang; Kar Yan Li; Wangyong Zhu; Yu-Xiong Su
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Evaluating the accuracy of resection planes in mandibular surgery using a preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative approach.

Authors:  S G Brouwer de Koning; T P Ter Braak; F Geldof; R L P van Veen; M J A van Alphen; L H E Karssemakers; W H Schreuder; M B Karakullukcu
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 2.789

6.  Computerized navigation for surgery of the lower jaw: comparison of 2 navigation systems.

Authors:  Nardy Casap; Alon Wexler; Ron Eliashar
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.895

7.  Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual cutting guides and 3D-navigation for osteotomies of the mandible and maxilla.

Authors:  Jonathan M Bernstein; Michael J Daly; Harley Chan; Jimmy Qiu; David Goldstein; Nidal Muhanna; John R de Almeida; Jonathan C Irish
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Application of computer-assisted navigation systems in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Authors:  Shintaro Sukegawa; Takahiro Kanno; Yoshihiko Furuki
Journal:  Jpn Dent Sci Rev       Date:  2018-05-07

9.  Errors according to the number of registered markers used in navigation-assisted surgery of the mandible.

Authors:  Young-Eun Hwang; Sang-Hoon Kang; Hang-Keun Kim
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2019-02-09       Impact factor: 2.151

10.  Electromagnetic surgical navigation in patients undergoing mandibular surgery.

Authors:  S G Brouwer de Koning; F Geldof; R L P van Veen; M J A van Alphen; L H E Karssemakers; J Nijkamp; W H Schreuder; T J M Ruers; M B Karakullukcu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.