Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 990–994 | Cite as

Electromagnetic tracking for CT-guided spine interventions: phantom, ex-vivo and in-vivo results

  • Philipp BrunersEmail author
  • Tobias Penzkofer
  • Markus Nagel
  • Robert Elfring
  • Nina Gronloh
  • Thomas Schmitz-Rode
  • Rolf W. Günther
  • Andreas H. Mahnken
Interventional

Abstract

An electromagnetic-based tracking and navigation system was evaluated for interventional radiology. The electromagnetic tracking system (CAPPA IRAD EMT, CASinnovations, Erlangen, Germany) was used for real-time monitoring of punctures of the lumbar facet joints and intervertebral disks in a spine phantom, three pig cadavers and three anaesthesized pigs. Therefore, pre-interventional computed tomography (CT) datasets were transferred to the navigation system and puncture trajectories were planned. A coaxial needle was advanced along the trajectories while the position of the needle tip was monitored in real time. After puncture tracts were marked with pieces of wire another CT examination was performed and distances between wires and anatomical targets were measured. Performing punctures of the facet joints mean needle positioning errors were 0.4 ± 0.8 mm in the spine phantom, 2.8 ± 2.1 mm ex vivo and 3.0 ± 2.0 mm in vivo with mean length of the puncture tract of 54.0 ± 10.4 mm (phantom), 51.6 ± 12.6 mm (ex vivo) and 50.9 ± 17.6 mm (in vivo). At first attempt, intervertebral discs were successfully punctured in 15/15 in the phantom study, in 12/15 in the ex-vivo study and 14/15 in the in-vivo study, respectively. Immobilization of the patient and optimal positioning of the field generator are essential to achieve a high accuracy of needle placement in a clinical CT setting.

Keywords

Interventional radiology Computed tomography Navigation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been funded in part by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) in the framework of the OrthoMIT project under grant no. 01EQ0402.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobi V, Thalhammer A, Kirchner J (1999) Value of a laser guidance system for CT interventions: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 9:137–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagel M, Hoheisel M, Petzold R et al (2007) Needle and catheter navigation using electromagnetic tracking for computer-assisted C-arm CT interventions. Proceedings of SPIE 6509: 65090JGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kettenbach J, Kronreif G, Figl M et al (2005) Robot-assisted biopsy using computed tomography-guidance: initial results from in vitro tests. Invest Radiol 40:219–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bale R, Widmann G (2007) Navigated CT-guided interventions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 16:196–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krombach GA, Schmitz-Rode T, Brabrand K et al (2000) Initial experiences with a new optical target system (SimpliCT) for CT-guided punctures. Rofo 172:557–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krombach GA, Schmitz-Rode T, Wein BB et al (2000) Potential of a new laser target system for percutaneous CT-guided nerve blocks: technical note. Neuroradiology 42:838–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hussain S (1996) Gantry angulation in CT-guided percutaneous adrenal biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:537–539PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith KR, Frank KJ, Bucholz RD (1994) The NeuroStation—a highly accurate, minimally invasive solution to frameless stereotactic neurosurgery. Comput Med Imaging Graph 18:247–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merloz P, Tonetti J, Pittet L et al (1998) Computer-assisted spine surgery. Comput Aided Surg 3:297–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khadem R, Yeh CC, Sadeghi-Tehrani M et al (2000) Comparative tracking error analysis of five different optical tracking systems. Comput Aided Surg 5:98–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meier-Meitinger M, Nagel M, Kalender W et al (2008) Computer-assisted navigation system for interventional CT-guided procedures: Results of phantom and clinical studies. RoFo 180:310–317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holzknecht N, Helmberger T, Schoepf UJ et al (2001) Evaluation of an electromagnetic virtual target system (CT-guide) for CT-guided interventions. Rofo 173:612–618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wallace MJ, Gupta S, Hicks ME (2006) Out-of-plane computed-tomography-guided biopsy using a magnetic field based navigation system. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29:108–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wood BJ, Zhang H, Durrani A et al (2005) Navigation with electromagnetic tracking for interventional radiology procedures: a feasibility study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:493–505PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Banovac F, Wilson E, Zhang H et al (2006) Needle biopsy of anatomically unfavorable liver lesions with an electromagnetic navigation assist device in a computed tomography environment. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:1671–1675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy EB, Zhang H, Lindisch D et al (2007) Electromagnetic tracking-guided percutaneous intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation in a swine model. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:303–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krücker J, Sheng X, Glossop N et al (2007) Electromagnetic tracking for thermal ablation and biopsy guidance: clinical evaluation of spatial accuracy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:1141–1150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Bruners
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tobias Penzkofer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Markus Nagel
    • 3
  • Robert Elfring
    • 1
  • Nina Gronloh
    • 4
  • Thomas Schmitz-Rode
    • 1
  • Rolf W. Günther
    • 2
  • Andreas H. Mahnken
    • 2
  1. 1.Helmholtz-Institute for Biomedical EngineeringRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyUniversity Hospital, RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  3. 3.CAS innovations AGErlangenGermany
  4. 4.Institute for Veterinary MedicineUniversity Hospital, RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations