Optical and electromagnetic tracking for navigated surgery of the sinuses and frontal skull base.

BACKGROUND New hardware and software algorithms in electromagnetic tracking for computer assisted surgery (CAS) have been developed. We aimed to compare electromagnetic tracking for navigated procedures in frontal skull base surgery to optical tracking. METHODS Target registration error (TRE) was determined in 6 anatomic specimens in an experimental wet-lab. As targets, 6 titanium screws were evenly distributed over the surgical areas of interest from the frontal sinus to the clivus. Optical tracking and electromagnetic tracking was evaluated in identical software environment using a last generation commercially available navigation system. RESULTS Submillimetric application accuracy could be achieved with both tracking modalities. Optical was more accurate than electromagnetic tracking and its reliability was better. Target position did not influence TRE, however TRE varied significantly from skull to skull. CONCLUSIONS Although less accurate than optical tracking, electromagnetic tracking still offers excellent accuracy and reliability for anterior skull base surgery. Electromagnetic tracking is not dependent on direct line of sight between its hardware components and therefore easily integrated even in cluttered operating theatres.

[1]  Fabrice Chassat,et al.  Experimental Protocol for Accuracy Evaluation of 6-d Localizers for Computer-Integrated Surgery: Application to Four Optical Localizers , 1998, MICCAI.

[2]  M. Donat,et al.  Stability of miniature electromagnetic tracking systems. , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[4]  B. Senior,et al.  A Comparison of Computer-Aided Surgery Registration Methods for Endoscopic Sinus Surgery , 2006, American journal of rhinology.

[5]  R Perez,et al.  Effect of optical digitizer selection on the application accuracy of a surgical localization system-a quantitative comparison between the OPTOTRAK and flashpoint tracking systems. , 1999, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[6]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  Quality assurance for clinical implementation of an electromagnetic tracking system. , 2009, Medical physics.

[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]  Andrew D. Wiles,et al.  Accuracy assessment protocols for elektromagnetic tracking systems , 2003, CARS.

[9]  James A. Johnson,et al.  Accuracy of an electromagnetic tracking device: a study of the optimal range and metal interference. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[10]  M. Figl,et al.  Evaluation of a new electromagnetic tracking system using a standardized assessment protocol , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.