ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Virtual Needle Insertion with Enhanced Haptic Feedback for Guidance and Needle-Tissue Interaction Forces.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Experimental evaluation of virtual needle insertion framework with enhanced haptic feedback.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interventional radiologists mainly rely on visual feedback via imaging modalities to steer a needle toward a tumor during biopsy and ablation procedures. In the case of CT-guided procedures, there is a risk of exposure to hazardous X-ray-based ionizing radiation. Therefore, CT scans are usually not used continuously, which increases the chances of a misplacement of the needle and the need for reinsertion, leading to more tissue trauma. Interventionalists also encounter haptic feedback via needle-tissue interaction forces while steering a needle. These forces are useful but insufficient to clearly perceive and identify deep-tissue structures such as tumors. The objective of this paper was to investigate the effect of enhanced force feedback for sensing interaction forces and guiding the needle when applied individually and simultaneously during a virtual CT-guided needle insertion task. We also compared the enhanced haptic feedback to enhanced visual feedback. We hypothesized that enhancing the haptic feedback limits the time needed to reach the target accurately and reduces the number of CT scans, as the interventionalist depends more on real-time enhanced haptic feedback. To test the hypothesis, a simulation environment was developed to virtually steer a needle in five degrees of freedom (DoF) to reach a tumor target embedded in a liver model. Twelve participants performed in the experiment with different feedback conditions where we measured their performance in terms of the following: targeting accuracy, trajectory tracking, number of CT scans required, and the time needed to finish the task. The results suggest that the combination of enhanced haptic feedback for guidance and sensing needle-tissue interaction forces significantly reduce the number of scans and the duration required to finish the task by 32.1% and 46.9%, respectively, when compared to nonenhanced haptic feedback. The other feedback modalities significantly reduced the duration to finish the task by around 30% compared to nonenhanced haptic feedback.
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.