Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Electromagnetic tracking in surgical and interventional environments: usability study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Electromagnetic (EM) tracking of instruments within a clinical setting is notorious for fluctuating measurement performance. Position location measurement uncertainty of an EM system was characterized in various environments, including control, clinical, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and CT scanner environments. Static and dynamic effects of CBCT and CT scanning on EM tracking were evaluated.

Methods

   Two guidance devices were designed to solely translate or rotate the sensor in a non-interfering fit to decouple pose-dependent tracking uncertainties. These devices were mounted on a base to allow consistent and repeatable tests when changing environments. Using this method, position and orientation measurement accuracies, precision, and 95 % confidence intervals were assessed.

Results

   The tracking performance varied significantly as a function of the environment—especially within the CBCT and CT scanners—and sensor pose. In fact, at a fixed sensor position in the clinical environment, the measurement error varied from 0.2 to 2.2 mm depending on sensor orientations. Improved accuracies were observed along the vertical axis of the field generator. Calibration of the measurements improved tracking performance in the CT environment by 50–85 %.

Conclusion

   EM tracking can provide effective assistance to surgeons or interventional radiologists during procedures performed in a clinical or CBCT environment. Applications in the CT scanner demand precalibration to provide acceptable performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Notes

  1. The scaffolds’ STL files will be provided upon request to the corresponding author so that the experiments can be repeated by other groups.

References

  1. Thompson S, Penney G, Dasguta P, Hawkes D (2013) Improved modelling of tool tracking errors by modelling dependent marker errors. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32:165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kwartowitz DM, Rettmann ME, Holmes III DR, and Robb RA (2010) A novel technique for analysis of accuracy of magnetic tracking systems used in image guided surgery. In: Proc SPIE, pp 76251L–76251L. International Society for Optics and Photonics

  3. Yaniv Z, Wilson E, Lindisch D, Cleary K (2009) Electromagnetic tracking in the clinical environment. Med Phys 36:876

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Birkfellner W, Watzinger F, Wanschitz F, Enislidis G, Kollmann C, Rafolt D, Nowotny R, Ewers R, Bergmann H (1998) Systematic distortions in magnetic position digitizers. Med Phys 25:2242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maier-Hein L, Franz AM, Birkfellner W, Hummel J, Gergel I, Wegner I, Meinzer H-P (2012) Standardized assessment of new electromagnetic field generators in an interventional radiology setting. Med Phys 39:3424

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson E, Yaniv Z, Zhang H, Nafis C, Shen E, Shechter G, Wiles AD, Peters T, Lindisch D and Cleary K(2007) A hardware and software protocol for the evaluation of electromagnetic tracker accuracy in the clinical environment: a multi-center study. In: Proc SPIE, pp 65092T–65092T. International Society for Optics and Photonics

  7. Sadjadi H, Hashtrudi-Zaad K and Fichtinger G (2014) Needle deflection estimation: prostate brachytherapy phantom experiments. Int J CARS. doi:10.1007/s11548-014-0985-0

  8. Sadjadi H, Hashtrudi-Zaad K, Fichtinger G (2013) Fusion of electromagnetic trackers to improve needle deflection estimation: simulation study. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60:2706–2715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sadjadi H, Hashtrudi-Zaad K and Fichtinger G (2012) Needle deflection estimation using fusion of electromagnetic trackers. In: 2012 annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). IEEE, pp 952–955

  10. Shen E, Shechter G, Kruecker J, Stanton D (2007) Quantification of ac electromagnetic tracking system accuracy in a ct scanner environment. In: Proc SPIE. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 65090L–65090L

  11. Cleary K, Zhang H, Glossop N, Levy E, Wood B and Banovac F (2005) Electromagnetic tracking for image-guided abdominal procedures: Overall system and technical issues. In: 27th Annual international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society, 2005. IEEE-EMBS 2005. IEEE, pp 6748–6753

  12. Bo LE, Leira HO, Tangen GA, Hofstad EF, Amundsen T, Lango T (2012) Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking with a prototype field generator in an interventional or setting. Med Phys 39(1):399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schicho K, Figl M, Donat M, Birkfellner W, Seemann R, Wagner A, Bergmann H, Ewers R (2005) Stability of miniature electromagnetic tracking systems. Phys Med Biol 50(9):2089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Feuerstein M, Reichl T, Vogel J, Traub J, Navab N (2009) Magneto-optical tracking of flexible laparoscopic ultrasound: Model-based online detection and correction of magnetic tracking errors. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28(6):951–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hummel J, Figl M, Kollmann C, Bergmann H, Birkfellner W (2002) Evaluation of a miniature electromagnetic position tracker. Med Phys 29:2205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lugez E, Pichora D, Akl S, Ellis R (2014) Intraoperative ct scanning impact on electromagnetic tracking performance. Int J CARS 9(Suppl 1):S107–S108

    Google Scholar 

  17. Krücker J, Xu S, Glossop N, Viswanathan A, Borgert J, Schulz H, Wood BJ (2007) Electromagnetic tracking for thermal ablation and biopsy guidance: clinical evaluation of spatial accuracy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18(9):1141–1150

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shen E, Shechter G, Kruecker J and Stanton D (2008) Effects of sensor orientation on ac electromagnetic tracking system accuracy in a ct scanner environment. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol 6918, pp 691823

  19. Lugez E, Pichora D, Akl S, Ellis R (2013) Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking in an operating-room setting. Int J CARS 8(Suppl 1):S147–S148

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lugez E, Pichora DR, Akl SG, and Ellis RE (2013) Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking in an image-guided surgery suite. Int Bone Joint J, 95-B(Supp 28):25–25

  21. Seeberger R, Kane G, Hoffmann J, Eggers G (2012) Accuracy assessment for navigated maxillo-facial surgery using an electromagnetic tracking device. J Cranio Maxill Surg 40(2):156–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kral F, Puschban EJ, Riechelmann H, Freysinger W (2013) Comparison of optical and electromagnetic tracking for navigated lateral skull base surgery. Int J Med Robot Comp 9:247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Atuegwu NC, Galloway RL (2008) Volumetric characterization of the aurora magnetic tracker system for image-guided transorbital endoscopic procedures. Phys Med Biol 53(16):4355

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Day JS, Murdoch DJ, Dumas GA (2000) Calibration of position and angular data from a magnetic tracking device. J Biomech 33(8):1039–1045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Frantz DD, Wiles AD, Leis SE, Kirsch SR (2003) Accuracy assessment protocols for electromagnetic tracking systems. Phys Med Biol 48(14):2241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Franz AM, März J, Hummel J, Birkfellner W, Bendl R, Delorme S, Schlemmer H-P, Meinzer H-P, Maier-Hein L (2012) Electromagnetic tracking for us-guided interventions: standardized assessment of a new compact field generator. Int J Comput Assist Radiol. Surg 7(6):813–818

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hummel JB, Bax MR, Figl ML, Kang Y, Maurer C, Birkfellner WW, Bergmann H, Shahidi R (2005) Design and application of an assessment protocol for electromagnetic tracking systems. Med Phys 32:2371–2379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. LaScalza S, Arico J, Hughes R (2003) Effect of metal and sampling rate on accuracy of flock of birds electromagnetic tracking system. J Biomech 36:141–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Milne AD, Chess DG, Johnson JA, King GJW (1996) Accuracy of an electromagnetic tracking device: a study of the optimal operating range and metal interference. J Biomech 29(6):791–793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Poulin F, Amiot L-P (2002) Interference during the use of an electromagnetic tracking system under or conditions. J Biomech 35(6):733–737

  31. Stevens F, Kulkarni N, Ismaily SK, Lionberger DR (2010) Minimizing electromagnetic interference from surgical instruments on electromagnetic surgical navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(8):2244–2250

  32. Wagner A, Schicho K, Birkfellner W, Figl M, Seemann R, König F, Kainberger F, Ewers R (2002) Quantitative analysis of factors affecting intraoperative precision and stability of optoelectronic and electromagnetic tracking systems. Med Phys 29:905

  33. Wegner I, Teber D, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M, Meinzer H-P, Huber J (2012) Pitfalls of electromagnetic tracking in clinical routine using multiple or adjacent sensors. Int J Med Robot Comp 9:268–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. http://www.ndigital.com/medical/products/aurora/

  35. Arun KS, Huang TS and Blostein SD (1987) Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, PAMI-9:698–700

  36. Ikits M, Brederson JD, Hansen CD and Hollerbach JM (2001) An improved calibration framework for electromagnetic tracking devices. In: Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality. IEEE, pp 63–70

  37. Kindratenko V (2000) A survey of electromagnetic position tracker calibration techniques. Virtual Real 5(3):169–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT (2001) Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine 26(4):352–359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu J, Zhang Y, Li Z (2007) Improving the positioning accuracy of a neurosurgical robot system. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 12(5):527–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Abdulaziz Al Qahtani, clinical fellow, for his assistance in collecting data. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Gabor Fichtinger was supported as Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair.

Conflict of interest

Elodie Lugez, Hossein Sadjadi, David Pichora, Randy Ellis, and Gabor Fichtinger declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Percutaneous Surgery, School of Computing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada

    Elodie Lugez, Hossein Sadjadi & Gabor Fichtinger

  2. School of Computing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada

    Randy E. Ellis & Selim G. Akl

  3. Departments of Surgery and Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    David R. Pichora

Authors
  1. Elodie Lugez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Sadjadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. David R. Pichora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Randy E. Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Selim G. Akl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gabor Fichtinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabor Fichtinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lugez, E., Sadjadi, H., Pichora, D.R. et al. Electromagnetic tracking in surgical and interventional environments: usability study. Int J CARS 10, 253–262 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1110-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1110-0

Keywords