ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Performance of a tracked ultrasound navigation setup for pediatric tumor surgery: a phantom study.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeResecting pediatric tumors is often surgically challenging caused by insufficient tumor localization, due to limited visibility and palpability. Surgical navigation systems may potentially improve intraoperative tumor localization. This study evaluates the accuracy and precision of an in-house developed navigation setup using tracked ultrasound under standardized conditions.
methodsBone surface-based registrations, using automatic bone segmentation on tracked ultrasound images, were conducted on phantoms to validate the performance of the in-house developed surgical navigation setup. Registration was conducted on different phantoms, consisting of tumors near bones of an extremity (n = 50), the pelvis (n = 5) and the thoracic wall (n = 5). In addition, the same registration framework was evaluated in the case of kidney tumors, where the kidney surface was used instead of the bone surface for registration. Target registration error (TRE) was used as the primary outcome measure.
resultsFor tumors localized with bone surface-based registration, the setup achieved a median TRE of 1.3 mm with an interquartile range (IQR) of 0.9-2.1 mm. The robustness of the bone surface registration method was demonstrated with consistent results across anatomical regions. For kidney tumor localization with kidney surface-based registration, the setup achieved a median TRE of 3.3 mm with an IQR of 2.7-3.6 mm.
conclusionUnder controlled circumstances, the navigation setup demonstrated reproducible < 2 mm accuracy for tumor localization using the bone surface registration. For kidney tumors, the navigation setup showed < 4 mm accuracy. These findings establish a performance benchmark that can guide interpretation of larger inaccuracies encountered during clinical use and support future development toward clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42081039What 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.