» Articles » PMID: 36658373

Out-of-Plane Needle Placements Using 3D Augmented Reality Protractor on Smartphone: An Experimental Phantom Study

Overview
Date 2023 Jan 19
PMID 36658373
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of needle placement using a three-dimensional (3D) augmented reality (AR) protractor on smartphones (AR Puncture).

Materials And Methods: An AR protractor that can be rotated in three directions against the CT plane with angle guidance lines for smartphones was developed. The protractor center can be adjusted to an entry point by manually moving the smartphone with the protractor center fixed at the center of the screen (Fix-On-Screen) or by image tracking with a printed QR code placed at an entry point (QR-Tracking). Needle placement was performed by viewing a target line in the tangent direction with the Bull's eye method. The needle placement errors placed by four operators in six out-of-plane directions in a phantom using a smartphone (iPhone XR, Apple, Cupertino, CA, USA) were compared with two registration methods.

Results: No significant difference in the average needle placement error was observed between the Fix-On-Screen and QR-Tracking methods (5.6 ± 1.7 mm vs. 6.1 ± 2.9 mm, p = 0.475). The average procedural time of the Fix-On-Screen method was shorter than that of the QR-Tracking method (71.0 ± 23.9 s vs. 98.4 ± 59.5 s, p = 0.042).

Conclusion: The accuracies of out-of-plane needle placements using the 3D AR protractor with the two registration methods were equally high, with short procedure times. In clinical use, the Fix-On-Screen registration method would be more convenient because no additional markers are required.

Citing Articles

Smartphone Technology for Applications in Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Interventional Procedures.

Lee K, Muniyandi P, Li M, Saccenti L, Christou A, Xu S Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2024; 48(2):142-156.

PMID: 39681741 PMC: 11790737. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-024-03925-4.


The Feasibility and Accuracy of Holographic Navigation with Laser Crosshair Simulator Registration on a Mixed-Reality Display.

Qi Z, Jin H, Wang Q, Gan Z, Xiong R, Zhang S Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(3).

PMID: 38339612 PMC: 10857152. DOI: 10.3390/s24030896.


Augmented Reality Applications in Interventional Radiology: Possibilities and Challenges.

Fehrenbach U Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023; 46(5):680-681.

PMID: 36949184 PMC: 10156907. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-023-03402-4.

References
1.
Maybody M, Stevenson C, Solomon S . Overview of navigation systems in image-guided interventions. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013; 16(3):136-43. DOI: 10.1053/j.tvir.2013.02.008. View

2.
Durand P, Moreau-Gaudry A, Silvent A, Frandon J, Chipon E, Medici M . Computer assisted electromagnetic navigation improves accuracy in computed tomography guided interventions: A prospective randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2017; 12(3):e0173751. PMC: 5351986. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173751. View

3.
Elmi-Terander A, Burstrom G, Nachabe R, Skulason H, Pedersen K, Fagerlund M . Pedicle Screw Placement Using Augmented Reality Surgical Navigation With Intraoperative 3D Imaging: A First In-Human Prospective Cohort Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 44(7):517-525. PMC: 6426349. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002876. View

4.
Hecht R, Li M, de Ruiter Q, Pritchard W, Li X, Krishnasamy V . Smartphone Augmented Reality CT-Based Platform for Needle Insertion Guidance: A Phantom Study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020; 43(5):756-764. PMC: 8979406. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-019-02403-6. View

5.
Li M, Seifabadi R, Long D, De Ruiter Q, Varble N, Hecht R . Smartphone- versus smartglasses-based augmented reality (AR) for percutaneous needle interventions: system accuracy and feasibility study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2020; 15(11):1921-1930. PMC: 8985545. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-020-02235-7. View