Advertisement

Electromagnetic tracking for US-guided interventions: standardized assessment of a new compact field generator

  • A. M. Franz
  • K. März
  • J. Hummel
  • W. Birkfellner
  • R. Bendl
  • S. Delorme
  • H.-P. Schlemmer
  • H.-P. Meinzer
  • L. Maier-Hein
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

One of the main challenges related to electromagnetic tracking in the clinical setting is a placement of the field generator (FG) that optimizes the reliability and accuracy of sensor localization. Recently, a new mobile FG for the NDI Aurora® tracking system has been presented. This Compact FG is the first FG that can be attached directly to an ultrasound (US) probe. The purpose of this study was to assess the precision and accuracy of the Compact FG in the presence of nearby mounted US probes.

Materials and methods

Six different US probes were mounted onto the Compact FG by means of a custom-designed mounting adapter. To assess precision and accuracy of the Compact FG, we employed a standardized assessment protocol. Utilizing a specifically manufactured plate, we measured positional data on three levels of distances from the FG as well as rotational data.

Results

While some probes had negligible influence on tracking accuracy two probes increased the mean distance error up to 1.5 mm compared with a reference measurement of 0.5 mm. The jitter error consistently stayed below 0.2 mm in all cases. The mean relative error in orientation was found to be smaller than 3°.

Conclusion

Attachment of an US probe to the Compact FG does not have a critical influence on tracking accuracy in most cases. Clinical benefit of this promising mobile FG must be shown in future studies.

Keywords

Electromagnetic tracking Electromagnetic field generator Compact field generator Tracked ultrasound Computer-assisted interventions Ultrasound-guided interventions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Banovac F, Tang J, Xu S, Lindisch D, Chung HY, Levy EB, Chang T, McCullough MF, Yaniv Z, Wood BJ, Cleary K (2005) Precision targeting of liver lesions using a novel electromagnetic navigation device in physiologic phantom and swine. Med Phys 32(8): 2698–2705. doi: 10.1118/1.1992267 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergmeir C, Seitel M, Frank C, Simone RD, Meinzer HP, Wolf I (2009) Comparing calibration approaches for 3d ultrasound probes. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 4(2): 203–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birkfellner W, Hummel J, Wilson E, Cleary K (2008) Tracking devices. In: Image-guided interventions: technology and applications, chap 2. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birth M, Iblher P, Hildebrand P, Nolde J, Bruch HP (2003) Ultrasound-guided interventions using magnetic field navigation. first experiences with ultra-guide 2000 under operative conditions. Ultraschall in der Medizin 24: 90–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boctor EM, Iordachita I, Fichtinger G, Hager GD (2006) Ultrasound self-calibration. In: Cleary KR, Galloway RL Jr (eds) SPIE medical imaging 2006: visualization, image-guided procedures, and display, vol 6141, pp 784–795. doi: 10.1117/12.659594
  6. 6.
    Erikson KE, Fry FJ, Jones JP (1974) Ultrasound in medicine—a review. IEEE Trans Sonics Ultrason SU- 21(3): 144–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hastenteufel M, Vetter M, Meinzer HP, Wolf I (2006) Effect of 3d ultrasound probes on the accuracy of electromagnetic tracking systems. Ultrasound Med Biol 32(9): 1359–1368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hummel JB, Bax MR, Figl ML, Kang Y, Maurer CJ, Birkfellner WW, Bergmann H, Shahidi R (2005) Design and application of an assessment protocol for electromagnetic tracking systems. Med Phys 32(7): 2371–2379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maier-Hein L, Franz AM, Birkfellner W, Hummel J, Gergel I, Wegner I, Meinzer HP (2012) Standardized assessment of new electromagnetic field generators in an interventional radiology setting. Med Phys (in press)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peters TM (2006) Image-guidance for surgical procedures. Phys Med Biol 51(14): R505–R540. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/14/R01 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yaniv Z, Wilson E, Lindisch D, Cleary K (2009) Electromagnetic tracking in the clinical environment. Med Phys 36(3): 876–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Franz
    • 1
  • K. März
    • 1
  • J. Hummel
    • 2
  • W. Birkfellner
    • 2
  • R. Bendl
    • 1
  • S. Delorme
    • 1
  • H.-P. Schlemmer
    • 1
  • H.-P. Meinzer
    • 1
  • L. Maier-Hein
    • 1
  1. 1.German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation OncologyMedical University ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations