Needle deflection estimation: prostate brachytherapy phantom experiments
- 548 Downloads
The performance of a fusion-based needle deflection estimation method was experimentally evaluated using prostate brachytherapy phantoms. The accuracy of the needle deflection estimation was determined. The robustness of the approach with variations in needle insertion speed and soft tissue biomechanical properties was investigated.
A needle deflection estimation method was developed to determine the amount of needle bending during insertion into deformable tissue by combining a kinematic deflection model with measurements taken from two electromagnetic trackers placed at the tip and the base of the needle. Experimental verification of this method for use in prostate brachytherapy needle insertion procedures was performed. A total of 21 beveled tip, 18 ga, 200 mm needles were manually inserted at various speeds through a template and toward different targets distributed within 3 soft tissue mimicking polyvinyl chloride prostate phantoms of varying stiffness. The tracked positions of both the needle tip and base were recorded, and Kalman filters were applied to fuse the sensory information. The estimation results were validated using ground truth obtained from fluoroscopy images.
The manual insertion speed ranged from 8 to 34 mm/s, needle deflection ranged from 5 to 8 mm at an insertion depth of 76 mm, and the elastic modulus of the soft tissue ranged from 50 to 150 kPa. The accuracy and robustness of the estimation method were verified within these ranges. When compared to purely model-based estimation, we observed a reduction in needle tip position estimation error by \(52\pm 17\) % (mean \(\pm \) SD) and the cumulative deflection error by \(57\pm 19\) %.
Fusion of electromagnetic sensors demonstrated significant improvement in estimating needle deflection compared to model-based methods. The method has potential clinical applicability in the guidance of needle placement medical interventions, particularly prostate brachytherapy.
KeywordsNeedle deflection estimation Brachytherapy Electromagnetic tracking Sensor fusion Kalman filter Surgical navigation
This work was supported in part through the Applied Cancer Research Unit program of Cancer Care Ontario with funds provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Gabor Fichtinger was funded as a Cancer Ontario Research Chair. Hossein Sadjadi was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Conflict of interest
Hossein Sadjadi, Keyvan Hashtrudi-Zaad, and Gabor Fichtinger declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Sadjadi H, Hashtrudi-Zaad K, Fichtinger G (2012) Needle deflection estimation using fusion of electromagnetic trackers. In: International conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). San Diego, pp 952–955Google Scholar
- 4.Sadjadi H, Hashtrudi-Zaad K, Fichtinger G (Oct 2013) Fusion of electromagnetic trackers to improve needle deflection estimation: simulation study. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng (TBME) 60(10):2706–2715Google Scholar
- 5.Sadjadi H, Hashtrud-Zaad K, Xu H, Fichtinger G (2013) Experimental evaluation of needle deflection estimation for brachytherapy. In: Computer assisted radiology and surgery (CARS 2013). Heidelberg (abstract in International Journal of Computer Assisted Surgery and Radiology, 8(1):391–392)Google Scholar
- 7.Wallner K, Merrick G, Dattoli MJ, Blasko JC (2007) Prostate brachytherapy made complicated. SmartMedicine Press, p 600Google Scholar
- 9.Podder T, Clark D, Sherman J, Fuller D, Messing E, Rubens D, Strang J, Zhang Y, O’Dell W, Ng W, Yu Y (2005) Effects of tip geometry of surgical needles: an assessment of force and deflection. In: European medical and biological engineering conference (EMBEC05). Prague, pp 1727–1983Google Scholar
- 13.Abolhassani N, Patel R, Ayazi F (2007) Effects of different insertion methods on reducing needle deflection. In: 29th Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, EMBS 2007, pp 491–494Google Scholar
- 16.Goksel O, Dehghan E, Salcudean S (2009) Modeling and simulation of flexible needles. Med Eng Phys 31(9):1069–1078Google Scholar
- 18.Asadian A, Kermani M, Patel R (2011) An analytical model for deflection of flexible needles during needle insertion. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 2551–2556Google Scholar
- 23.Jafari AH, Dhaouadi R, Jhemi A (2013) Nonlinear friction estimation in elastic drive systems using a dynamic neural network-based observer. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform 17(4):637–646Google Scholar
- 26.Minhas DS, Engh JA, Fenske MM, Riviere CN (2007) Modeling of needle steering via duty-cycled spinning. In: International conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), pp 2756–2759Google Scholar
- 28.Park W, Reed KB, Okamura AM, Chirikjian GS (2010) Estimation of model parameters for steerable needles. In: IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 3703–3708Google Scholar
- 30.Aboofazeli M, Abolmaesumi P, Mousavi P, Fichtinger G (2009) A new scheme for curved needle segmentation in three-dimensional ultrasound images. In: IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: from nano to macro, (ISBI), pp 1067–1070Google Scholar
- 32.Dehghan E, Wen X, Zahiri-Azar R, Marchal M, Salcudean SE (2008) Needle-tissue interaction modeling using ultrasound-based motion estimation: phantom study. Computer Aided Surg 13(5):265–280Google Scholar
- 39.Lugez E, Pichora DR, Akl SG, Ellis RE (2013) Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking in an operating-room setting. In: Computer assisted radiology and surgery (CARS 2013). Heidelberg (abstract in International Journal of Computer Assisted Surgery and Radiology, vol. 8(1):147–148)Google Scholar
- 41.Lugez E, Pichora DR, Akl SG, Ellis RE (2013) Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking in an image-guided surgery suite. Bone Jt J Orthop Proc Suppl 95(Supp 28):25Google Scholar
- 42.Jain A, Kon R, Zhou Y, Fichtinger G (2005) C-arm calibration-is it really necessary? In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention (MICCAI), pp 639–646Google Scholar