Image-guided surgery: what is the accuracy?

Purpose of review Use of image-guided surgery (IGS) systems in otolaryngology, particularly rhinology, has grown exponentially in recent years. Central to their use is the understanding of the accuracy of each system. The purpose of this review is to discuss the error inherent in all IGS systems. A standardized technique (currently used in the engineering literature) for understanding and reporting error in IGS systems is reviewed. Using this technique, the error of commercially available IGS systems is reviewed. Recent findings The most commonly used IGS systems depend on the conformation of the skin, as opposed to relying on bone-implanted devices. For these systems, mean accuracies 2 mm or less are routinely reported. This finding is independent of fiducial markers (eg, proprietary headsets, skin-affixed markers, or laser scanning of skin surfaces). Techniques of fiducial localization and registration of CT scans to intraoperative anatomy are proprietary to each company. As such, there is great variability in reporting system specifications-particularly error of IGS systems. This lack of standardization makes comparison of one system to another difficult if not impossible. Summary Image-guided surgery systems commonly used in rhinology report mean accuracies of 2 mm or less. Surgeons must be aware that this value represents a mean of a distribution of errors. As such, 95% of the time error can be expected to be less than approximately 1.7 times its mean value. However, outliers (errors much larger and much smaller than the mean) may exist for each IGS intervention. As noted, IGS systems function to complement-not replace-knowledge of surgical anatomy.

[1]  M. Bel Registration , 1892, Science.

[2]  M. Fried,et al.  Image‐Guided Endoscopic Surgery: Results of Accuracy and Performance in a Multicenter Clinical Study Using an Electromagnetic Tracking System , 1997, The Laryngoscope.

[3]  Robert J. Maciunas,et al.  Registration of head volume images using implantable fiducial markers , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  R. Casiano,et al.  Efficacy of Computed Tomographic Image–Guided Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Residency Training Programs , 2000, The Laryngoscope.

[5]  M J Citardi,et al.  Image-Guided Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery , 2000, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[6]  R. Metson,et al.  Physician Experience With an Optical Image Guidance System for Sinus Surgery , 2000, The Laryngoscope.

[7]  Jay B. West,et al.  The distribution of target registration error in rigid-body point-based registration , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[8]  Jay B. West,et al.  Fiducial Point Placement and the Accuracy of Point-based, Rigid Body Registration , 2001, Neurosurgery.

[9]  J Schlaier,et al.  Registration accuracy and practicability of laser-directed surface matching. , 2002, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[10]  M Gross,et al.  Image guided navigation system-a new technology for complex endoscopic endonasal surgery. , 2003, Postgraduate medical journal.

[11]  Ralph Metson,et al.  Image-Guided Sinus Surgery: Lessons Learned from the First 1000 Cases , 2003, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[12]  C. Snyderman,et al.  Sources of Registration Error with Image Guidance Systems During Endoscopic Anterior Cranial Base Surgery , 2004, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.