Advertisement

Neuroradiology

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 55–61 | Cite as

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

  • Anna Mokry
  • Florian Willmitzer
  • Rafael HostettlerEmail author
  • Henning Richter
  • Patrick Kircher
  • Sibylle Kneissl
  • Stephan Wetzel
Spinal Neuroradiology

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.

Keywords

Computer tomography Navigation Needle guidance 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 363–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loizides A, Peer S, Plaikner M et al (2011) Ultrasound-guided injections in the lumbar spine. Med Ultrason 13(1):54–58Google Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Unit of Diagnostic ImagingVetmeduni ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Clinic for Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Clinical Diagnostics and Services, Vetsuisse FacultyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Robotics and Embedded SystemsTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Medical Templates AGEggSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of NeuroradiologyHirslanden Clinic ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations