Hee-Guen Kang1, Sang-Hoon Kang2,3, Hang-Keun Kim4,5,6, Young-Don Son1,7,8. 1. Department of Health Sciences and Technology, GAIHST, Gachon University, Incheon, South Korea. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Health Sciences and Technology, GAIHST, Gachon University, Incheon, South Korea. dsaint31@gachon.ac.kr. 5. Neuroscience Research Institute, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea. dsaint31@gachon.ac.kr. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of IT Convergence, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnamdaero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam-si, 13120, Korea. dsaint31@gachon.ac.kr. 7. Neuroscience Research Institute, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea. 8. Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of IT Convergence, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnamdaero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam-si, 13120, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of navigation process according to the type of tracking methods and registration markers. The target registration errors (TREs) were measured at seven anatomical landmarks of the mandible. METHODS: Four different experiments were performed to obtain the TREs using two tracking methods, the optical tracker (Polaris) and the electromagnetic (EM) tracker (Aurora), and two types of registration markers, invasive and noninvasive markers. All comparisons of TREs were statistically analyzed using SPSS and Python-based statistical package. RESULTS: The average TRE values obtained from the four experiments were as follows: (1) 0.85 mm (± 0.07) using invasive marker and Aurora, (2) 1.06 mm (± 0.12) using invasive marker and Polaris, (3) 1.43 mm (± 0.15) using noninvasive marker and Aurora, and (4) 1.57 mm (± 0.23) using noninvasive marker and Polaris. Comparisons between all the experimental results revealed statistically significant differences except for the type of tracking system. Although the comparison between the modality of the tracking system showed no significant differences, the EM-based approach consistently demonstrated better performances than the optical type in all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that irrespective of the tracking modality, using invasive marker is a better choice in terms of accuracy. When using noninvasive marker, it is important to consider the increased TREs. In this study, the noninvasive marker caused a maximum increment of TREs of 0.81 mm compared with the invasive marker. Furthermore, using an EM-based tracker with invasive marker may result in the best accuracy for navigation.
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of navigation process according to the type of tracking methods and registration markers. The target registration errors (TREs) were measured at seven anatomical landmarks of the mandible. METHODS: Four different experiments were performed to obtain the TREs using two tracking methods, the optical tracker (Polaris) and the electromagnetic (EM) tracker (Aurora), and two types of registration markers, invasive and noninvasive markers. All comparisons of TREs were statistically analyzed using SPSS and Python-based statistical package. RESULTS: The average TRE values obtained from the four experiments were as follows: (1) 0.85 mm (± 0.07) using invasive marker and Aurora, (2) 1.06 mm (± 0.12) using invasive marker and Polaris, (3) 1.43 mm (± 0.15) using noninvasive marker and Aurora, and (4) 1.57 mm (± 0.23) using noninvasive marker and Polaris. Comparisons between all the experimental results revealed statistically significant differences except for the type of tracking system. Although the comparison between the modality of the tracking system showed no significant differences, the EM-based approach consistently demonstrated better performances than the optical type in all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that irrespective of the tracking modality, using invasive marker is a better choice in terms of accuracy. When using noninvasive marker, it is important to consider the increased TREs. In this study, the noninvasive marker caused a maximum increment of TREs of 0.81 mm compared with the invasive marker. Furthermore, using an EM-based tracker with invasive marker may result in the best accuracy for navigation.
Authors: Michael R DeLong; Brad M Gandolfi; Meaghan L Barr; Neha Datta; Thomas D Willson; Reza Jarrahy Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Ming Zhu; Fei Liu; Chaozheng Zhou; Li Lin; Yan Zhang; Gang Chai; Le Xie; Fazhi Qi; Qingfeng Li Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 2.740