Electromagnetic tracking in surgical and interventional environments: usability study
- 632 Downloads
Electromagnetic (EM) tracking of instruments within a clinical setting is notorious for fluctuating measurement performance. Position location measurement uncertainty of an EM system was characterized in various environments, including control, clinical, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and CT scanner environments. Static and dynamic effects of CBCT and CT scanning on EM tracking were evaluated.
Two guidance devices were designed to solely translate or rotate the sensor in a non-interfering fit to decouple pose-dependent tracking uncertainties. These devices were mounted on a base to allow consistent and repeatable tests when changing environments. Using this method, position and orientation measurement accuracies, precision, and 95 % confidence intervals were assessed.
The tracking performance varied significantly as a function of the environment—especially within the CBCT and CT scanners—and sensor pose. In fact, at a fixed sensor position in the clinical environment, the measurement error varied from 0.2 to 2.2 mm depending on sensor orientations. Improved accuracies were observed along the vertical axis of the field generator. Calibration of the measurements improved tracking performance in the CT environment by 50–85 %.
EM tracking can provide effective assistance to surgeons or interventional radiologists during procedures performed in a clinical or CBCT environment. Applications in the CT scanner demand precalibration to provide acceptable performance.
KeywordsSurgical navigation Electromagnetic tracking Accuracy analysis Image-guided therapy Usability study
The authors would like to thank Dr. Abdulaziz Al Qahtani, clinical fellow, for his assistance in collecting data. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Gabor Fichtinger was supported as Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair.
Conflict of interest
Elodie Lugez, Hossein Sadjadi, David Pichora, Randy Ellis, and Gabor Fichtinger declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Kwartowitz DM, Rettmann ME, Holmes III DR, and Robb RA (2010) A novel technique for analysis of accuracy of magnetic tracking systems used in image guided surgery. In: Proc SPIE, pp 76251L–76251L. International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
- 6.Wilson E, Yaniv Z, Zhang H, Nafis C, Shen E, Shechter G, Wiles AD, Peters T, Lindisch D and Cleary K(2007) A hardware and software protocol for the evaluation of electromagnetic tracker accuracy in the clinical environment: a multi-center study. In: Proc SPIE, pp 65092T–65092T. International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
- 7.Sadjadi H, Hashtrudi-Zaad K and Fichtinger G (2014) Needle deflection estimation: prostate brachytherapy phantom experiments. Int J CARS. doi: 10.1007/s11548-014-0985-0
- 9.Sadjadi H, Hashtrudi-Zaad K and Fichtinger G (2012) Needle deflection estimation using fusion of electromagnetic trackers. In: 2012 annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). IEEE, pp 952–955Google Scholar
- 10.Shen E, Shechter G, Kruecker J, Stanton D (2007) Quantification of ac electromagnetic tracking system accuracy in a ct scanner environment. In: Proc SPIE. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 65090L–65090LGoogle Scholar
- 11.Cleary K, Zhang H, Glossop N, Levy E, Wood B and Banovac F (2005) Electromagnetic tracking for image-guided abdominal procedures: Overall system and technical issues. In: 27th Annual international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society, 2005. IEEE-EMBS 2005. IEEE, pp 6748–6753Google Scholar
- 16.Lugez E, Pichora D, Akl S, Ellis R (2014) Intraoperative ct scanning impact on electromagnetic tracking performance. Int J CARS 9(Suppl 1):S107–S108Google Scholar
- 18.Shen E, Shechter G, Kruecker J and Stanton D (2008) Effects of sensor orientation on ac electromagnetic tracking system accuracy in a ct scanner environment. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol 6918, pp 691823Google Scholar
- 19.Lugez E, Pichora D, Akl S, Ellis R (2013) Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking in an operating-room setting. Int J CARS 8(Suppl 1):S147–S148Google Scholar
- 20.Lugez E, Pichora DR, Akl SG, and Ellis RE (2013) Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking in an image-guided surgery suite. Int Bone Joint J, 95-B(Supp 28):25–25Google Scholar
- 30.Poulin F, Amiot L-P (2002) Interference during the use of an electromagnetic tracking system under or conditions. J Biomech 35(6):733–737Google Scholar
- 31.Stevens F, Kulkarni N, Ismaily SK, Lionberger DR (2010) Minimizing electromagnetic interference from surgical instruments on electromagnetic surgical navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(8):2244–2250Google Scholar
- 32.Wagner A, Schicho K, Birkfellner W, Figl M, Seemann R, König F, Kainberger F, Ewers R (2002) Quantitative analysis of factors affecting intraoperative precision and stability of optoelectronic and electromagnetic tracking systems. Med Phys 29:905 Google Scholar
- 35.Arun KS, Huang TS and Blostein SD (1987) Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, PAMI-9:698–700Google Scholar
- 36.Ikits M, Brederson JD, Hansen CD and Hollerbach JM (2001) An improved calibration framework for electromagnetic tracking devices. In: Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality. IEEE, pp 63–70Google Scholar