Image‐Guided Abdominal Surgery and Therapy Delivery

Galloway, Robert L.; Herrell, S. Duke; Miga, Michael I.

doi:10.1260/2040-2295.3.2.203

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current systems do not address this deformation [32–34], which compromises registration (and therefore localization) accuracy [35], fundamental to surgical navigation. Intraoperative motion and respiration effects further confound localization, with organ translation ranging from 10 to 75 mm during respiration [36].…”

Section: Technical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Evidence in Image-Guided Liver Surgery

Kingham

2016

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Technical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Evidence in Image-Guided Liver Surgery

Kingham

2016

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Surgical navigation systems can be used to assist the surgeon in making that translation, improving the accuracy of tumor localization and tumor border assessment [1][2][3][4]. These systems register preoperative images to the actual surgical field, and by real-time projection of tracked surgical tools onto these images, the surgeons can navigate the targets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many navigation systems rely on the assumption that the preoperatively acquired images apply to the real-time anatomy during surgery, i.e., they assume rigid anatomy [5][6][7][8]. However, in non-rigid target areas such as the breast and the abdominal area, there are vast intraoperative deformations caused by breathing, organ deformation and surgical manipulation [2]. These deformations can cause large tumor motions, directly impacting the accuracy of these navigation systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy assessment of target tracking using two 5-degrees-of-freedom wireless transponders

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Surgical navigation systems are generally only applied for targets in rigid areas. For non-rigid areas, real-time tumor tracking can be included to compensate for anatomical changes. The only clinically cleared system using a wireless electromagnetic tracking technique is the Calypso ® System (Varian Medical Systems Inc., USA), designed for radiotherapy. It is limited to tracking maximally three wireless 5-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) transponders, all used for tumor tracking. For surgical navigation, a surgical tool has to be tracked as well. In this study, we evaluated whether accurate 6DOF tumor tracking is possible using only two 5DOF transponders, leaving one transponder to track a tool. Methods Two methods were defined to derive 6DOF information out of two 5DOF transponders. The first method uses the vector information of both transponders (TTV), and the second method combines the vector information of one transponder with the distance vector between the transponders (OTV). The accuracy of tracking a rotating object was assessed for each method mimicking clinically relevant and worst-case configurations. Accuracy was compared to using all three transponders to derive 6DOF (Default method). An optical tracking system was used as a reference for accuracy. Results The TTV method performed best and was as accurate as the Default method for almost all transponder configurations (median errors < 0.5°, 95% confidence interval < 3°). Only when the angle between the transponders was less than 2°, the TTV method was inaccurate and the OTV method may be preferred. The accuracy of both methods was independent of the angle of rotation, and only the OTV method was sensitive to the plane of rotation. Conclusion These results indicate that accurate 6DOF tumor tracking is possible using only two 5DOF transponders. This encourages further development of a wireless EM surgical navigation approach using a readily available clinical system.

show abstract

“…In the fields of neurosurgery, spinal surgery, and ENT surgery, for example, such planning and navigation systems have been used for over 20 years and are now widely viewed as standard-of-care technologies for certain procedures [3][4][5][6][7]. As these technologies mature, applications to soft-tissue organs have been investigated and used in the clinical setting [8][9][10]. Many approaches have been developed to perform intraoperative navigation, but all have the same goal in common: to improve surgical outcomes by increasing the amount of information available to the surgeon in the operation room (OR).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%