Top

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

Published in:

01-05-2020 | Interventional Radiology | Laboratory Investigation

Smartphone Augmented Reality CT-Based Platform for Needle Insertion Guidance: A Phantom Study

Authors: Rachel Hecht, Ming Li, Quirina M. B. de Ruiter, William F. Pritchard, Xiaobai Li, Venkatesh Krishnasamy, Wael Saad, John W. Karanian, Bradford J. Wood

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 5/2020

Abstract

Objective

To develop and assess the accuracy of an augmented reality (AR) needle guidance smartphone application.

Methods

A needle guidance AR smartphone application was developed using Unity and Vuforia SDK platforms, enabling real-time displays of planned and actual needle trajectories. To assess the application’s accuracy in a phantom, eleven operators (including interventional radiologists, non-interventional radiology physicians, and non-physicians) performed single-pass needle insertions using AR guidance (n = 8) and CT-guided freehand (n = 8). Placement errors were measured on post-placement CT scans. Two interventional radiologists then used AR guidance (n = 3) and CT-guided freehand (n = 3) to navigate needles to within 5 mm of targets with intermediate CT scans permitted to mimic clinical use. The total time and number of intermediate CT scans required for successful navigation were recorded.

Results

In the first experiment, the average operator insertion error for AR-guided needles was 78% less than that for CT-guided freehand (2.69 ± 2.61 mm vs. 12.51 ± 8.39 mm, respectively, p < 0.001). In the task-based experiment, interventional radiologists achieved successful needle insertions on each first attempt when using AR guidance, thereby eliminating the need for intraoperative CT scans. This contrasted with 2 ± 0.9 intermediate CT scans when using CT-guided freehand. Additionally, average procedural times were reduced from 13.1 ± 6.6 min with CT-guided freehand to 4.5 ± 1.3 min with AR guidance, reflecting a 66% reduction.

Conclusions

All operators exhibited superior needle insertion accuracy when using the smartphone-based AR guidance application compared to CT-guided freehand. This AR platform can potentially facilitate percutaneous biopsies and ablations by improving needle insertion accuracy, expediting procedural times, and reducing radiation exposures.

Appelbaum L, Sosna J, Nissenbaum Y, Benshtein A, Goldberg SN. Electromagnetic navigation system for CT-guided biopsy of small lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(5):1194–200. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.10.5151.CrossRefPubMed

Putzer D, Arco D, Schamberger B, Schanda F, Mahlknecht J, Widmann G, et al. Comparison of two electromagnetic navigation systems for CT-guided punctures: a phantom study. RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin. 2016;188(5):470–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-103691.CrossRefPubMed

Kloeppel R, Weisse T, Deckert F, Wilke W, Pecher S. CT-guided intervention using a patient laser marker system. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(6):1010–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300051054.CrossRefPubMed

Rajagopal M, Venkatesan AM. Image fusion and navigation platforms for percutaneous image-guided interventions. Abdom Radiol. 2016;41(4):620–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0645-7.CrossRef

Xu S, Krishnasamy V, Levy E, Li M, Tse ZTH, Wood BJ. Smartphone-guided needle angle selection during CT-guided procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(1):207–13. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.17.18498.CrossRefPubMed

Hiraki T, Matsuno T, Kamegawa T, Komaki T, Sakurai J, Matsuura R, et al. Robotic insertion of various ablation needles under computed tomography guidance: accuracy in animal experiments. Eur J Radiol. 2018;105:162–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.06.006.CrossRefPubMed

Kettenbach J, Kronreif G. Robotic systems for percutaneous needle-guided interventions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol MITAT. 2015;24(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645706.2014.977299.CrossRefPubMed

Won HJ, Kim N, Kim GB, Seo JB, Kim H. Validation of a CT-guided intervention robot for biopsy and radiofrequency ablation: experimental study with an abdominal phantom. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017;23(3):233–7. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2017.16422.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Guha D, Alotaibi NM, Nguyen N, Gupta S, McFaul C, Yang VXD. Augmented reality in neurosurgery: a review of current concepts and emerging applications. Can J Neurol Sci. 2017;44(3):235–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2016.443.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Heinrich F, Joeres F, Lawonn K, Hansen C. Comparison of projective augmented reality concepts to support medical needle insertion. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Gr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2019.2903942.CrossRef

11.

Besharati Tabrizi L, Mahvash M. Augmented reality-guided neurosurgery: accuracy and intraoperative application of an image projection technique. J Neurosurg. 2015;123(1):206–11. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.9.Jns141001.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Marker DR, Paweena U, Thainal TU, Flammang AJ, Fichtinger G, Iordachita II, et al. 1.5 T augmented reality navigated interventional MRI: paravertebral sympathetic plexus injections. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017;23(3):227–32. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2017.16323.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Eftekhar B. A smartphone app to assist scalp localization of superficial supratentorial lesions-technical note. World Neurosurg. 2016;85:359–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.091.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kenngott HG, Preukschas AA, Wagner M, Nickel F, Muller M, Bellemann N, et al. Mobile, real-time, and point-of-care augmented reality is robust, accurate, and feasible: a prospective pilot study. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(6):2958–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6151-y.CrossRefPubMed

15.

van Oosterom MN, van der Poel HG, Navab N, van de Velde CJH, van Leeuwen FWB. Computer-assisted surgery: virtual- and augmented-reality displays for navigation during urological interventions. Curr Opin Urol. 2018;28(2):205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000478.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cutolo F, Meola A, Carbone M, Sinceri S, Cagnazzo F, Denaro E, et al. A new head-mounted display-based augmented reality system in neurosurgical oncology: a study on phantom. Comput Assist Surg. 2017;22(1):39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/24699322.2017.1358400.CrossRef

17.

Maruyama K, Watanabe E, Kin T, Saito K, Kumakiri A, Noguchi A, et al. Smart glasses for neurosurgical navigation by augmented reality. Oper Neurosurg. 2018;15(5):551–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opx279.CrossRef

18.

Witowski J, Darocha S, Kownacki L, Pietrasik A, Pietura R, Banaszkiewicz M, et al. Augmented reality and three-dimensional printing in percutaneous interventions on pulmonary arteries. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2019;9(1):23–9. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims.2018.09.08.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Racadio JM, Nachabe R, Homan R, Schierling R, Racadio JM, Babic D. Augmented reality on a C-arm system: a preclinical assessment for percutaneous needle localization. Radiology. 2016;281(1):249–55. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151040.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rosenthal M, State A, Lee J, Hirota G, Ackerman J, Keller K, et al. Augmented reality guidance for needle biopsies: an initial randomized, controlled trial in phantoms. Med Image Anal. 2002;6(3):313–20.CrossRef

21.

Wacker FK, Vogt S, Khamene A, Jesberger JA, Nour SG, Elgort DR, et al. An augmented reality system for MR image-guided needle biopsy: initial results in a swine model. Radiology. 2006;238(2):497–504. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2382041441.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fichtinger G, Deguet A, Masamune K, Balogh E, Fischer GS, Mathieu H, et al. Image overlay guidance for needle insertion in CT scanner. IEEE Trans Bio-med Eng. 2005;52(8):1415–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2005.851493.CrossRef

23.

Solbiati M, Passera KM, Rotilio A, Oliva F, Marre I, Goldberg SN, et al. Augmented reality for interventional oncology: proof-of-concept study of a novel high-end guidance system platform. Eur Radiol Exp. 2018;2:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-018-0054-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Negussie AH, Partanen A, Mikhail AS, Xu S, Abi-Jaoudeh N, Maruvada S, et al. Thermochromic tissue-mimicking phantom for optimisation of thermal tumour ablation. Int J Hyperth. 2016;32(3):239–43. https://doi.org/10.3109/02656736.2016.1145745.CrossRef

25.

Grasso RF, Faiella E, Luppi G, Schena E, Giurazza F, Del Vescovo R, et al. Percutaneous lung biopsy: comparison between an augmented reality CT navigation system and standard CT-guided technique. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013;8(5):837–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0816-8.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Beca F, Polyak K. Intratumor heterogeneity in breast cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;882:169–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22909-6_7.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kyrochristos ID, Ziogas DE, Roukos DH. Drug resistance: origins, evolution and characterization of genomic clones and the tumor ecosystem to optimize precise individualized therapy. Drug Discov Today. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2019.04.008.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Asvadi NH, Anvari A, Uppot RN, Thabet A, Zhu AX, Arellano RS. CT-guided percutaneous microwave ablation of tumors in the hepatic dome: assessment of efficacy and safety. J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR. 2016;27(4):496–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.01.010quiz 3.CrossRefPubMed

29.

de Baere T, Tselikas L, Catena V, Buy X, Deschamps F, Palussiere J. Percutaneous thermal ablation of primary lung cancer. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2016;97(10):1019–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2016.08.016.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Shady W, Petre EN, Gonen M, Erinjeri JP, Brown KT, Covey AM, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of colorectal cancer liver metastases: factors affecting outcomes—a 10-year experience at a single center. Radiology. 2016;278(2):601–11. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142489.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Smartphone Augmented Reality CT-Based Platform for Needle Insertion Guidance: A Phantom Study
Authors: Rachel Hecht
Ming Li
Quirina M. B. de Ruiter
William F. Pritchard
Xiaobai Li
Venkatesh Krishnasamy
Wael Saad
John W. Karanian
Bradford J. Wood
Publication date: 01-05-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Interventional Radiology
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02403-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Smartphone Augmented Reality CT-Based Platform for Needle Insertion Guidance: A Phantom Study

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Uterine Artery Embolisation for Women with Giant Versus Non-giant Uterine Fibroids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Biodegradable Biliary Stents for Percutaneous Treatment of Post-liver Transplantation Refractory Benign Biliary Anastomotic Strictures

Transarterial Ethanol Ablation for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma (≤ 3 cm): A Comparative Study Versus Radiofrequency Ablation

Old Threat, New Enemy: Is Your Interventional Radiology Service Ready for the Coronavirus Disease 2019?

Reply to: “Regarding ‘PET/CT Imaging Characteristics After Radioembolization of Hepatic Metastasis from Breast Cancer’”

Assessment of the Antithrombogenicity of a Poly-2-Methoxyethylacrylate-Coated Central Venous Port-Catheter System