ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2017
Electromagnetically tracked personalized templates for surgical navigation.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Augmented Reality With Dynamic Anatomy Modelling for Knee Arthroscopy.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAn electromagnetic (EM) surgical tracking system was developed for orthopedic navigation. The reportedly poor accuracy of point-based EM navigation was improved by using anatomical impressions, which were EM-tracked personalized templates. Lines, rather than points, were consistently used for calibration and error evaluation.
methodsTechnical accuracy was tested using models derived from CT scans of ten cadaver shoulders. Tracked impressions were first designed, calibrated, and tested using lines as fiducial objects. Next, tracked impressions were tested against EM point-based navigation and optical point-based navigation, in environments that were either relatively empty or that included surgical instruments. Finally, a tracked impression was tested on a cadaver forearm in a simulated fracture-repair task.
resultsCalibration of anatomical impressions to EM tracking was highly accurate, with mean fiducial localization errors in positions of 0.3 mm and in angles of [Formula: see text]. Technical accuracy on physical shoulder models was also highly accurate; in an EM field with surgical instruments, the mean of target registration errors in positions was 2.2 mm and in angles was [Formula: see text]. Preclinical accuracy in a cadaver forearm in positions was 0.4 mm and in angles was [Formula: see text]. The technical accuracy was significantly better than point-based navigation, whether by EM tracking or by optical tracking. The preclinical accuracy was comparable to that achieved by point-based optical navigation.
conclusionsEM-tracked impressions-a hybrid of personalized templates and EM navigation-are a promising technology for orthopedic applications. The two technical contributions are the novel hybrid navigation and the consistent use of lines as fiducial objects, replacing traditional point-based computations. The accuracy improvement was attributed to the combination of physical surfaces and line directions in the processes of calibration and registration. The technical studies and preclinical trial suggest that EM-tracked impressions are an accurate, ergonomic innovation in image-guided orthopedic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28332159What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.