Augmented Reality-Assisted CT-Guided Puncture: A Phantom Study.
Augmented reality
Image-guided biopsy
Imaging
Phantoms
Punctures
Journal
Cardiovascular and interventional radiology
ISSN: 1432-086X
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003538
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
17
12
2021
accepted:
31
05
2022
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
27
7
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate the feasibility of a novel augmented reality system for CT-guided liver interventions and to compare it with free-hand interventions in a phantom setting. A newly developed augmented reality interface was used, with projection of CT-imaging in multiplanar reconstruction and live rendering of the needle position, a bull`s eye view of the needle trajectory and a visualization of the distance to the target. Punctures were performed on a custom-made abdominal phantom by three interventional radiologists with different levels of expertise. Time and needle placement accuracy were measured. Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test (p < 0.05) was performed to evaluate intraparticipant difference. Intraparticipant puncture times were significantly shorter for each operator in the augmented reality condition (< 0.001 for the resident, < 0.001 for the junior staff member and 0.027 for the senior staff member). The junior staff member had an improvement in accuracy of 1 mm using augmented reality (p 0.026); the other two participants showed no significant improvement regarding accuracy. In this small series, it appears that the novel augmented reality system may improve the speed of CT-guided punctures in the phantom model compared to the free-hand procedure while maintaining a similar accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35750863
doi: 10.1007/s00270-022-03195-y
pii: 10.1007/s00270-022-03195-y
pmc: PMC9307551
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1173-1177Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Xu S, Krishnasamy V, Levy E, Li M, Tse ZTH, Wood BJ. Smartphone-guided needle angle selection during CT-guided procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18498 .
doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18498
pubmed: 29446674
Bruners P, Penzkofer T, Nagel M, Elfring R, Gronloh N, Schmitz-Rode T, Günther RW, Mahnken AH. Electromagnetic tracking for CT-guided spine interventions: phantom, ex-vivo and in-vivo results. Eur Radiol. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00330-008-1227-Z .
doi: 10.1007/S00330-008-1227-Z
pubmed: 19043720
Penzkofer T, Bruners P, Isfort P, Schoth F, Schmitz-Rode T, Günther RW, Mahnken AH. Free-hand CT-based electromagnetically guided interventions: accuracy, efficiency and dose usage. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2011. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645706.2011.553256 .
doi: 10.3109/13645706.2011.553256
pubmed: 21395458
Kettenbach J, Kronreif G, Figl M, Fürst M, Birkfellner W, Hanel R, Ptacek W, Bergmann H. Robot-assisted biopsy using computed tomography-guidance: initial results from in vitro tests. Invest Radiol. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RLI.0000155285.05672.CF .
doi: 10.1097/01.RLI.0000155285.05672.CF
pubmed: 15770140
Rosenthal M, State A, Lee J, Hirota G, Ackerman J, Keller K, Pisano E, Jiroutek M, Muller K, Fuchs H. Augmented reality guidance for needle biopsies: an initial randomized, controlled trial in phantoms. Med Image Anal. 2002;6(3):313–20.
doi: 10.1016/S1361-8415(02)00088-9
Das M, Sauer F, Schoepf UJ, Khamene A, Vogt SK, Schaller S, Kikinis R, Van Sonnenberg E, Silverman SG. Augmented reality visualization for CT-guided Interventions: system description, feasibility, and initial evaluation in an abdominal phantom. Radiology. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol2401040018 .
doi: 10.1148/radiol2401040018
pubmed: 17057074
The difference between Microsoft HoloLens vs HoloLens 2 [Internet]. Program-Ace. 2019. https://program-ace.com/blog/microsoft-hololens-vs-hololens-2-comparison . Accessed 15 Jul 2021.
Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J, Aylward S, Miller JV, Pieper S, Kikinis R. 3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
pubmed: 22898681
pmcid: 3466364
Park BJ, Hunt SJ, Nadolski GJ, Gade TP. Augmented reality improves procedural efficiency and reduces radiation dose for CT-guided lesion targeting: a phantom study using HoloLens 2. Sci Rep. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75676-4 .
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75676-4
pubmed: 33384456
pmcid: 7775425
Li R, Si W, Liao X, Wang Q, Klein R, Heng PA. Mixed reality based respiratory liver tumor puncture navigation. Comput Vis Media. 2020;2019:54. https://doi.org/10.1007/S41095-019-0156-X .
doi: 10.1007/S41095-019-0156-X
Long DJ, Li M, De Ruiter QMB, Hecht R, Li X, Varble N, Blain M, Kassin MT, Sharma KV, Sarin S, Krishnasamy VP, Pritchard WF, Karanian JW, Wood BJ, Xu S. Comparison of smartphone augmented reality, smartglasses augmented reality, and 3D CBCT-guided fluoroscopy navigation for percutaneous needle insertion: a phantom study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02760-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00270-020-02760-7
pubmed: 33409547
Si W, Liao X, Qian Y, Wang Q. Mixed reality guided radiofrequency needle placement: a pilot study. IEEE Access. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2843378 .
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2843378