A New Nasopharyngeal Dynamic Reference Frame Improves Accuracy in Navigated Skull Base Targets

Objective. We questioned whether the position of the dynamic reference frame (DRF) influences the application accuracy in electromagnetically navigated cranial procedures. A carrier for an electromagnetic DRF was developed, which could be fixed at the posterior edge of the vomer near the center of the head. This nasopharyngeal DRF was compared with a standard DRF fixed to the surface of the forehead. Methods. Image coordinates and real-world coordinates were co-registered and the total target error (TTE) was measured in the frontal and the lateral skull base of formalin fixed human head. At each anatomical site, 10 targets served for TTE determinations and 5 different fiducial combinations were used for registration. Results. With the nasopharyngeal DRF, lower TTE values (2.8 ± 1.4 mm; mean ± SD) were observed when compared with the forehead DRF (3.7 ± 2.8 mm; P = .004). TTEs of both anatomical sites investigated were significantly lower when using the nasopharyngeal DRF (frontal skull base 3.4 vs 2.1 mm, P = .005 and lateral skull base 3.9 vs 3.5 mm, P = .013) than with the standard forehead mounted one. Conclusion. Positioning the DRF in the center of the head significantly improved the application accuracy of targets in the skull base with electromagnetic navigation by 25%.

[1]  P. Grunert,et al.  Computer-aided navigation in neurosurgery , 2003, Neurosurgical Review.

[2]  Marc C Metzger,et al.  Influence of different registration modalities on navigation accuracy in ear, nose, and throat surgery depending on the surgical field , 2010, The Laryngoscope.

[3]  Purang Abolmaesumi,et al.  Distribution of Target Registration Error for Anisotropic and Inhomogeneous Fiducial Localization Error , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  K. S. Arun,et al.  Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[5]  O. Al-Mefty,et al.  A technical note on endonasal combined microscopic endoscopic with free head navigation technique of removal of pituitary adenomas , 2010, Neurosurgical Review.

[6]  Jay B. West,et al.  Designing optically tracked instruments for image-guided surgery , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  T. Vogl,et al.  Navigation-Based Needle Puncture of a Cadaver Using a Hybrid Tracking Navigational System , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[8]  Makoto Hashizume,et al.  Medical Navigation System for Otologic Surgery Based on Hybrid Registration and Virtual Intraoperative Computed Tomography , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  J M Fitzpatrick,et al.  The role of registration in accurate surgical guidance , 2010, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

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

[11]  M. Hashizume,et al.  An effective point-based registration tool for surgical navigation , 2010, Surgical Endoscopy.

[12]  Terry M. Peters,et al.  Improved Statistical TRE Model When Using a Reference Frame , 2007, MICCAI.

[13]  Zhijian Song,et al.  Guidelines for the placement of fiducial points in image‐guided neurosurgery , 2010, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[14]  Florian Kral,et al.  Comparison of optical and electromagnetic tracking for navigated lateral skull base surgery , 2013, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[15]  W. Freysinger,et al.  Quantitative error analysis for computer assisted navigation: a feasibility study. , 2013, Medical physics.

[16]  Tobias Rudolph,et al.  Comparison of three optical tracking systems in a complex navigation scenario , 2010, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[17]  K. Tschopp,et al.  Outcome of functional endonasal sinus surgery with and without CT-navigation. , 2008, Rhinology.

[18]  W Freysinger,et al.  Optical and electromagnetic tracking for navigated surgery of the sinuses and frontal skull base. , 2011, Rhinology.

[19]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. , 2008, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[20]  G. Strauß,et al.  First clinical application of a navigation-controlled shaver in paranasal sinus surgery. , 2008, Surgical technology international.

[21]  Florian Kral,et al.  Navigated surgery at the lateral skull base and registration and preoperative imagery: experimental results. , 2011, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[22]  Wonse Park,et al.  The validity of marker registration for an optimal integration method in mandibular navigation surgery. , 2013, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[23]  K. Cleary,et al.  Navigation with electromagnetic tracking for interventional radiology procedures: a feasibility study. , 2005, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[24]  G. Widmann,et al.  [The learning curve of registration in navigated skull base surgery]. , 2011, Laryngo- rhino- otologie.

[25]  S. Selesnick,et al.  Image-guided surgical navigation in otology and neurotology. , 1999, The American journal of otology.