Advertisement

Neuroradiology

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 394–401 | Cite as

Magnetic versus manual guidewire manipulation in neuroradiology: in vitro results

  • T. KringsEmail author
  • J. Finney
  • P. Niggemann
  • P. Reinacher
  • N. Lück
  • A. Drexler
  • J. Lovell
  • A. Meyer
  • R. Sehra
  • P. Schauerte
  • M. Reinges
  • F. J. Hans
  • A. Thron
Interventional Neuroradiology

Abstract

Introduction

Standard microguidewires used in interventional neuroradiology have a predefined shape of the tip that cannot be changed while the guidewire is in the vessel. We evaluated a novel magnetic navigation system (MNS) that generates a magnetic field to control the deflection of a microguidewire that can be used to reshape the guidewire tip in vivo without removing the wire from the body, thereby potentially facilitating navigation along tortuous paths or multiple acute curves.

Method

The MNS consists of two permanent magnets positioned on either side of the fluoroscopy table that create a constant precisely controlled magnetic field in the defined region of interest. This field enables omnidirectional rotation of a 0.014-inch magnetic microguidewire (MG). Speed of navigation, accuracy in a tortuous vessel anatomy and the potential for navigating into in vitro aneurysms were tested by four investigators with differing experience in neurointervention and compared to navigation with a standard, manually controlled microguidewire (SG).

Results

Navigation using MG was faster (P=0.0056) and more accurate (0.2 mistakes per trial vs. 2.6 mistakes per trial) only in less-experienced investigators. There were no statistically significant differences between the MG and the SG in the hands of experienced investigators. One aneurysm with an acute angulation from the carrier vessel could be navigated only with the MG while the SG failed, even after multiple reshaping manoeuvres.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that magnetic navigation seems to be easier, more accurate and faster in the hands of less-experienced investigators. We consider that the features of the MNS may improve the efficacy and safety of challenging neurointerventional procedures.

Keywords

Magnetic navigation Neurointervention Aneurysm 

Notes

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Faddis MN, Lindsay B (2003) Magnetic catheter manipulation. Coron Artery Dis 14:25–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faddis MN, Blume W, Finney J, et al (2002) Novel, magnetically guided catheter for endocardial mapping and radiofrequency catheter ablation. Circulation 106:2980–2985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ernst S, Ouyang F, Linder C, et al (2004) Initial experience with remote catheter ablation using a novel magnetic navigation system: magnetic remote catheter ablation. Circulation 109:1472–1475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tillander H (1951) Magnetic guidance of a catheter with articulated steel tip. Acta Radiol 35:62–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tillander H (1956) Selective angiography of the abdominal aorta with a guided catheter. Acta Radiol 45:21–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ram W, Meyer H (1991) Heart catheterization in a neonate by interacting magnetic fields: a new and simple method of catheter guidance. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 22:317–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jenkins A, Parker H (1959) Electromagnetic support arrangement with three dimensional control. J Appl Phys 30:238–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yodh SB, Pierce NT, Weggel RJ, Montgomery DB (1968) A new magnet system for “intravascular navigation”. Med Biol Eng 6:143–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schiemann M, Killmann R, Kleen M, Abolmaali M, Finney J, Vogl TJ (2004) Vascular guide wire navigation with a magnetic guidance system: experimental results in a phantom. Radiology 232:475–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietrich T, Kleen M, Killmann R, et al (2004) Evaluation of magnetic navigation in an in vitro model of uterine artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:1457–1462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grady MS, Howard MA, Dacey RG, et al (2000) Experimental study of the magnetic stereotaxis system for catheter manipulation. J Neurosurg 93:282–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ernst S, Hachiya H, Chun JK, Ouyang F (2005) Remote catheter ablation of parahisian accessory pathways using a novel magnetic navigation system – a report of two cases. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 16:659–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krings T, Moller-Hartmann W, Hans FJ, et al (2003) A refined method for creating saccular aneurysms in the rabbit. Neuroradiology 45:423–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soderman M, Babic D, Homan R, Andersson T (2005) 3D roadmap in neuroangiography: technique and clinical interest. Neuroradiology 47:735–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Krings
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • J. Finney
    • 3
  • P. Niggemann
    • 1
  • P. Reinacher
    • 2
  • N. Lück
    • 1
  • A. Drexler
    • 1
  • J. Lovell
    • 3
  • A. Meyer
    • 4
  • R. Sehra
    • 3
  • P. Schauerte
    • 5
  • M. Reinges
    • 2
  • F. J. Hans
    • 2
  • A. Thron
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyUniversity Hospital AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital AachenAachenGermany
  3. 3.Stereotaxis Inc.St. LouisUSA
  4. 4.Siemens Medical SolutionsForchheimGermany
  5. 5.Clinic for CardiologyUniversity Hospital AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations