Premium
Comparison of freehand‐navigated and aiming device‐navigated targeting of liver lesions
Author(s) -
Wallach D.,
Toporek G.,
Weber S.,
Bale R.,
Widmann G.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the international journal of medical robotics and computer assisted surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.556
H-Index - 53
eISSN - 1478-596X
pISSN - 1478-5951
DOI - 10.1002/rcs.1505
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , computer science , percutaneous , biomedical engineering , nuclear medicine , medicine , radiology
Background Accurate needle placement is crucial for the success of percutaneous radiological needle interventions. We compared three guiding methods using an optical‐based navigation system: freehand, using a stereotactic aiming device and active depth control, and using a stereotactic aiming device and passive depth control. Methods For each method, 25 punctures were performed on a non‐rigid phantom. Five 1 mm metal screws were used as targets. Time requirements were recorded, and target positioning errors (TPE) were measured on control scans as the distance between needle tip and target. Results Time requirements were reduced using the aiming device and passive depth control. The Euclidian TPE was similar for each method (4.6 ± 1.2–4.9 ± 1.7 mm). However, the lateral component was significantly lower when an aiming device was used (2.3 ± 1.3–2.8 ± 1.6 mm with an aiming device vs 4.2 ± 2.0 mm without). Discussion Using an aiming device may increase the lateral accuracy of navigated needle insertion. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.