Electromagnetic navigation versus fluoroscopy in aortic endovascular procedures: a phantom study

PurposeTo explore the possible benefits of electromagnetic (EM) navigation versus conventional fluoroscopy during abdominal aortic endovascular procedures.MethodsThe study was performed on a phantom representing the abdominal aorta. Intraoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) of the phantom was acquired and merged with a preoperative multidetector CT (MDCT). The CBCT was performed with a reference plate fixed to the phantom that, after merging the CBCT with the MDCT, facilitated registration of the MDCT volume with the EM space. An EM field generator was stationed near the phantom. Navigation software was used to display EM-tracked instruments within the 3D image volume. Fluoroscopy was performed using a C-arm system. Five operators performed a series of renal artery cannulations using modified instruments, alternatingly using fluoroscopy or EM navigation as the sole guidance method. Cannulation durations and associated radiation dosages were noted along with the number of cannulations complicated by loss of guidewire insertion.ResultsA total of 120 cannulations were performed. The median cannulation durations were 41.5 and 34.5 s for the fluoroscopy- and EM-guided cannulations, respectively. No significant difference in cannulation duration was found between the two modalities (p = 0.736). Only EM navigation showed a significant reduction in cannulation duration in the latter half of its cannulation series compared with the first half (p = 0.004). The median dose area product for fluoroscopy was 0.0836 $$\hbox {Gy cm}^{2}$$Gycm2. EM-guided cannulations required a one-time CBCT dosage of 3.0278 $$\hbox {Gy cm}^{2}$$Gycm2. Three EM-guided and zero fluoroscopy-guided cannulations experienced loss of guidewire insertion.ConclusionOur findings indicate that EM navigation is not inferior to fluoroscopy in terms of the ability to guide endovascular interventions. Its utilization may be of particular interest in complex interventions where adequate visualization or minimal use of contrast agents is critical. In vivo studies featuring an optimized implementation of EM navigation should be conducted.

[1]  J. Powell,et al.  Incidence of cardiovascular events and death after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the randomized EVAR trial 1 , 2011, The British journal of surgery.

[2]  R. Popek,et al.  Radiation exposure in stent-grafting of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  Mathew Mercuri,et al.  The radiation burden from increasingly complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repair , 2011, Insights into imaging.

[4]  K. Cleary,et al.  Image-guided interventions: technology review and clinical applications. , 2010, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[5]  Celia Riga,et al.  Improved Catheter Navigation With 3D Electromagnetic Guidance , 2013, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[6]  Stephen Balter,et al.  An evaluation of fluoroscopy time and correlation with outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2007, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[7]  Christopher Piorkowski,et al.  Initial experience in ablation of typical atrial flutter using a novel three-dimensional catheter tracking system. , 2013, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[8]  Håkon Olav Leira,et al.  A novel research platform for electromagnetic navigated bronchoscopy using cone beam CT imaging and an animal model , 2011, Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy.

[9]  M. Davis,et al.  Radiation exposure and associated risks to operating-room personnel during use of fluoroscopic guidance for selected orthopaedic surgical procedures. , 1983, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  M. Russo,et al.  The golden age of minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery: current and future perspectives. , 2011, Future cardiology.

[11]  Christopher S Boyd,et al.  The impact of radiation dose exposure during endovascular aneurysm repair on patient safety. , 2010, Journal of vascular surgery.

[12]  F. Moll,et al.  Current state in tracking and robotic navigation systems for application in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. , 2015, Journal of vascular surgery.

[13]  P. McCullough,et al.  Contrast-induced acute kidney injury. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  Erik Buskens,et al.  A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  F. Manstad-Hulaas,et al.  Three-Dimensional Electromagnetic Navigation vs. Fluoroscopy for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Prospective Feasibility Study in Patients , 2012, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[16]  Geir Arne Tangen,et al.  Three-Dimensional Endovascular Navigation With Electromagnetic Tracking: Ex Vivo and In Vivo Accuracy , 2011, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.