Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of a novel, patient-mounted system for CT-guided needle navigation—an ex vivo study

  • Spinal Neuroradiology
  • Published:
Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To describe the features of a novel patient-mounted system for CT-guided needle navigation, the Puncture Cube System (PCS), and to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of the PCS by (a) applying numerical simulations and (b) by conducting punctures using the system in comparison to punctures using the free-hand method (FHM).

Methods

The PCS consists of a self-adhesive cube that is attached to the patient, with multiple through-holes in the upper and lower template plate and dedicated software that, using a computer vision algorithm, recognizes the cube in a planning scan. The target in the image dataset is connected by a line, here “virtual needle,” which passes through the cube. For any chosen path of the virtual needle, the entry points for the needle into the cube are displayed by the software for the upper and lower template on-the-fly.

The possible exactness of the system was investigated by using numerical simulations. Next, 72 punctures were performed by 6 interventionists using a phantom to compare for accuracy, time requirement, and number of CT scans for punctures with the system to the FHM ex vivo (phantom study).

Results

The theoretical precision to arrive at targets increased with the distance of the target but remained low. The mean error for targets up to 20 cm below the lower plate was computed to be well below 0.5 mm, and the worst-case error stayed below 1.3 mm.

Compared to a conventional free-hand procedure, the use of the navigation system resulted in a statistically significantly improved accuracy (3.4 mm ± 2.3 mm versus FHM 4.9 mm ± 3.2 mm) and overall lower intervention time (168 s ± 28.5 s versus FHM 200 s ± 44.8 s). Furthermore, the number of CT scans was reduced to 2.3 versus FHM 2.8).

Conclusion

The PCS is a promising technique to improve accuracy and reduce intervention time in CT-guided needle navigations compared to the FHM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Deml M, Buhr M, D Wimmer M et al (2015) CT-guided infiltration saves surgical intervention and fastens return to work compared to anatomical landmark-guided infiltration in patients with lumbosciatica. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1602-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Begemann PG (2009) CT-guided interventions—indications, technique, pitfalls. In: Mahnken AH, Ricke J (eds) CT- and MR-guided interventions in radiology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 11–20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoeltje J, Bruening R, Kastler B et al (2013) Interventional pain managment. In: Mahnken AH, Wilhelm KE, Ricke J (eds) CT- and MR-guided interventions in radiology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 363–419

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Fritz J, Sequeiros RB, Carrino JA (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging–guided spine injections. Top Magn Reson Imaging 22(4):143–151. https://doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0b013e31827e5de1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Streitparth F, de Bucourt M, Hartwig T et al (2013) Real-time MR-guided lumbosacral periradicular injection therapy using an open 1.0-T MRI system: an outcome study. Investig Radiol 48(6):471–476. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31828362be

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Loizides A, Peer S, Plaikner M et al (2011) Ultrasound-guided injections in the lumbar spine. Med Ultrason 13(1):54–58

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Roberts CC, Morrison WB, Deely DM, Zoga AC, Koulouris G, Winalski CS (2007) Use of a novel percutaneous biopsy localization device: initial musculoskeletal experience. Skelet Radiol 36(1):53–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-006-0182-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. CIVCO Medical Solutions. http://www.civco.com/mmi/ultrasound/computed-tomography/needle-guide/radguide-610-1187.htm. Accessed 11 Apr 2017

  9. von Jako CR, Zuk Y, Zur O et al (2013) A novel accurate minioptical tracking system for percutaneous needle placement. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60(8):2222–2225. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2013.2251883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schubert T, Jacob AL, Pansini M, Liu D, Gutzeit A, Kos S (2013) CT-guided interventions using a free-hand, optical tracking system: initial clinical experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36(4):1055–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0527-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Putzer D, Arco D, Schamberger B, Schanda F, Mahlknecht J, Widmann G, Schullian P, Jaschke W, Bale R (2016) Comparison of two electromagnetic navigation systems for CT-guided punctures: a phantom study (Elektromagnetische Navigationssysteme im Vergleich: CT-gezielte Punktionen an einem phantom). Rofo 188(5):470–478. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-103691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Durand P, Moreau-Gaudry A, Silvent A-S, Frandon J, Chipon E, Médici M, Bricault I (2017) Computer assisted electromagnetic navigation improves accuracy in computed tomography guided interventions: a prospective randomized clinical trial. PLoS One 12(3):e0173751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gruber-Rouh T, Schulz B, Eichler K, Naguib NNN, Vogl TJ, Zangos S (2015) Radiation dose and quickness of needle CT-interventions using a laser navigation system (LNS) compared with conventional method. Eur J Radiol 84(10):1976–1980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.07.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kettenbach J, Kronreif G (2015) Robotic systems for percutaneous needle-guided interventions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 24(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645706.2014.977299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chehab MA, Brinjikji W, Copelan A, Venkatesan A (2015) Navigational tools for interventional radiology and interventional oncology applications. Semin Interv Radiol 32(4):416–427. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1564705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beyer LP, Wiggermann P (2017) Planning and guidance: new tools to enhance the human skills in interventional oncology. Diagn Interv Imaging 98(9):583–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2017.07.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Unit of Diagnostic Imaging, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Anna Mokry & Sibylle Kneissl

  2. Clinic for Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Clinical Diagnostics and Services, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Florian Willmitzer, Henning Richter & Patrick Kircher

  3. Robotics and Embedded Systems, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Rafael Hostettler

  4. Medical Templates AG, Egg, Switzerland

    Rafael Hostettler & Stephan Wetzel

  5. Department of Neuroradiology, Hirslanden Clinic Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Stephan Wetzel

Authors
  1. Anna Mokry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Willmitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rafael Hostettler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Henning Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Kircher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sibylle Kneissl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stephan Wetzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Hostettler.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

RH and SW are shareholders of Medical Templates AG.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mokry, A., Willmitzer, F., Hostettler, R. et al. Evaluation of a novel, patient-mounted system for CT-guided needle navigation—an ex vivo study. Neuroradiology 61, 55–61 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2107-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2107-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation