Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Interventional
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jacobi V, Thalhammer A, Kirchner J (1999) Value of a laser guidance system for CT interventions: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 9:137–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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: 65090J

  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 40:219–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bale R, Widmann G (2007) Navigated CT-guided interventions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 16:196–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 172:557–560

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 42:838–841

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hussain S (1996) Gantry angulation in CT-guided percutaneous adrenal biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:537–539

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith KR, Frank KJ, Bucholz RD (1994) The NeuroStation—a highly accurate, minimally invasive solution to frameless stereotactic neurosurgery. Comput Med Imaging Graph 18:247–256

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Merloz P, Tonetti J, Pittet L et al (1998) Computer-assisted spine surgery. Comput Aided Surg 3:297–305

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Khadem R, Yeh CC, Sadeghi-Tehrani M et al (2000) Comparative tracking error analysis of five different optical tracking systems. Comput Aided Surg 5:98–107

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 180:310–317

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Holzknecht N, Helmberger T, Schoepf UJ et al (2001) Evaluation of an electromagnetic virtual target system (CT-guide) for CT-guided interventions. Rofo 173:612–618

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 29:108–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 16:493–505

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 17:1671–1675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:303–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:1141–1150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helmholtz-Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Philipp Bruners, Tobias Penzkofer, Robert Elfring & Thomas Schmitz-Rode

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Philipp Bruners, Tobias Penzkofer, Rolf W. Günther & Andreas H. Mahnken

  3. CAS innovations AG, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Nagel

  4. Institute for Veterinary Medicine, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Nina Gronloh

Authors
  1. Philipp Bruners
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Penzkofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Nagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Elfring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nina Gronloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Schmitz-Rode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rolf W. Günther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andreas H. Mahnken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp Bruners.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bruners, P., Penzkofer, T., Nagel, M. et al. Electromagnetic tracking for CT-guided spine interventions: phantom, ex-vivo and in-vivo results. Eur Radiol 19, 990–994 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1227-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1227-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation