Comparison of an Optical and a Mechanical Navigation System

  • S. Martelli
  • S. Bignozzi
  • M. Bontempi
  • S. Zaffagnini
  • L. Garcia
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2879)

Abstract

Different technologies have been used for computer assisted orthopaedic surgery for acquisition of surfaces and motions, but the most efficient are optical and mechanical[2]. In this study we compared two specific systems of these categories: FlashPointTM 5000 (Image Guided Technologies, USA) and FAROArmTM (FARO Technologies, USA). FARO Arm showed an intrinsic uncertainty of 0.1mm overcoming FlashPoint (0.2mm). However their use in noisy conditions resulted in similar application-uncertainty. FARO Arm can track motion at 31Hz while FlashPoint at 17Hz, therefore FlashPoint spatial resolution may be critical during fast movements. In simulated medical applications FARO Arm showed some difficulties (i) when used for passive motion with negligible forces, because the surgeon has to compensate its weight and (ii) during sample trajectory, because it has isolated singularities within its workspace. FlashPoint was affected by reflected light and required complete visibility during tracking of large trajectories. However its use in in-vivo conditions is more promising than FARO-Arm’s.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Capolaroni, M., et al.: La misura e la valutazione della sua incertezza nella fisica sperimentale. Zanichelli (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chassat, F., et al.: Experimental protocol of accuracy evaluation of 6-D localizers for computer-Integrated Surgery: Application to four optical localizers. In: Wells, W.M., Colchester, A.C.F., Delp, S.L. (eds.) MICCAI 1998. LNCS, vol. 1496, p. 277. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khadem, R., et al.: Comparative tracking error analysis of five different Optical tracking systems. Computer Aided Surgery (5), 97–107 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martelli, S.: A new method for simultaneous anatomical and functional studies of articular and its application to the human knee. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine (70), 223–240 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, Q., et al.: Effect of optical digitizer selection on the application accuracy of a surgical localization system-A quantitative comparison between the Optotrack and FlashPoint tracking systems. Computer Aided Surgery (4), 314–332 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor, J.R.: An introduction to error analysis, the study of uncertainties in physical measurements. University Science Books (1982)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Troccaz, J., et al.: Guiding systems for computer-assisted surgery: introducing synergistic devices and discussing different approaches. Medical Image Analysis (2), 101–119 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Martelli
    • 1
  • S. Bignozzi
    • 1
  • M. Bontempi
    • 1
  • S. Zaffagnini
    • 1
  • L. Garcia
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratorio di BiomeccanicaIstituti Ortopedici RizzoliBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations