ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2018
Probe versus microscope: a comparison of different methods for image-to-patient registration.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Calibrating 3D Scanner in the Coordinate System of Optical Tracker for Image-To-Patient Registration.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2021Article
- Image-guided cochlear access by non-invasive registration: a cadaveric feasibility study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeComputer-aided navigation is widely used in ENT surgery. The position of a surgical instrument is shown in the CT/MR images of the patient and can thus be a good support for the surgeon. The accuracy is highly dependent on the registration done prior to surgery. A microscope and a probe can both be used for registration and navigation, depending on the surgical intervention. A navigation system typically only reports the fiducial registration error after paired-point registration. However, the target registration error (TRE)-a measurement for the accuracy in the surgical area-is much more relevant. The aim of this work was to compare the performance of a microscope relative to a conventional probe-based approach with different registration methods.
methodsIn this study, optical tracking was used to register a plastic skull to its preoperative CT images with paired-point registration. Anatomical landmarks and skin-affixed markers were used as fiducials and targets. With both microscope and probe, four different registration methods were evaluated based on their TREs at 10 targets. For half of the experiments, a surface registration and/or external fiducials were used additionally to paired-point registration to study their influence to accuracy.
resultsOverall, probe registration leads to a smaller TRE ([Formula: see text]) than registration with a microscope ([Formula: see text]). Additional surface registration does not result in better accuracy of navigation for microscope and probe. The lowest mean TRE for both pointers can be achieved with paired-point registration only and radiolucent markers.
conclusionOur experiments showed that a probe used for registration and navigation achieves lower TREs compared using a microscope. Neither additional surface registration nor additional fiducials on an external reference element are necessary for improved accuracy of navigated ENT surgery on a plastic skull.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.