Comparison of Smartphone Augmented Reality, Smartglasses Augmented Reality, and 3D CBCT-guided Fluoroscopy Navigation for Percutaneous Needle Insertion: A Phantom Study
- PMID: 33409547
- DOI: 10.1007/s00270-020-02760-7
Comparison of Smartphone Augmented Reality, Smartglasses Augmented Reality, and 3D CBCT-guided Fluoroscopy Navigation for Percutaneous Needle Insertion: A Phantom Study
Abstract
Purpose: To compare needle placement performance using an augmented reality (AR) navigation platform implemented on smartphone or smartglasses devices to that of CBCT-guided fluoroscopy in a phantom.
Materials and methods: An AR application was developed to display a planned percutaneous needle trajectory on the smartphone (iPhone7) and smartglasses (HoloLens1) devices in real time. Two AR-guided needle placement systems and CBCT-guided fluoroscopy with navigation software (XperGuide, Philips) were compared using an anthropomorphic phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA). Six interventional radiologists each performed 18 independent needle placements using smartphone (n = 6), smartglasses (n = 6), and XperGuide (n = 6) guidance. Placement error was defined as the distance from the needle tip to the target center. Placement time was recorded. For XperGuide, dose-area product (DAP, mGy*cm2) and fluoroscopy time (sec) were recorded. Statistical comparisons were made using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA.
Results: The placement error using the smartphone, smartglasses, or XperGuide was similar (3.98 ± 1.68 mm, 5.18 ± 3.84 mm, 4.13 ± 2.38 mm, respectively, p = 0.11). Compared to CBCT-guided fluoroscopy, the smartphone and smartglasses reduced placement time by 38% (p = 0.02) and 55% (p = 0.001), respectively. The DAP for insertion using XperGuide was 3086 ± 2920 mGy*cm2, and no intra-procedural radiation was required for augmented reality.
Conclusions: Smartphone- and smartglasses-based augmented reality reduced needle placement time and radiation exposure while maintaining placement accuracy compared to a clinically validated needle navigation platform.
Keywords: Augmented reality; CBCT fluoroscopy; HoloLens; Image guidance; Interventional radiology; Percutaneous needle biopsy; Smartglasses; Smartphone; XperGuide.
Comment in
-
Augmented Reality: Thrilling Future for Interventional Oncology?Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021 May;44(5):782-783. doi: 10.1007/s00270-021-02801-9. Epub 2021 Mar 11. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2021. PMID: 33709274 No abstract available.
References
-
- Racadio JM, Babic D, Homan R, Rampton JW, Patel MN, Racadio JM, et al. Live 3D guidance in the interventional radiology suite. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):W357–64. - DOI
-
- Busser WM, Braak SJ, Futterer JJ, van Strijen MJ, Hoogeveen YL, de Lange F, et al. Cone beam CT guidance provides superior accuracy for complex needle paths compared with CT guidance. Br J Radiol. 2013;86(1030):20130310. - DOI
-
- Floridi C, Reginelli A, Capasso R, Fumarola E, Pesapane F, Barile A, et al. Percutaneous needle biopsy of mediastinal masses under C-arm conebeam CT guidance: diagnostic performance and safety. Med Oncol. 2017;34(4):67. - DOI
-
- Fior D, Vacirca F, Leni D, Pagni F, Ippolito D, Riva L, et al. Virtual guidance of percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy with C-arm cone-beam CT: diagnostic accuracy, risk factors and effective radiation dose. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42(5):712–9. - DOI
-
- Braak SJ, van Strijen MJ, van Leersum M, van Es HW, van Heesewijk JP. Real-Time 3D fluoroscopy guidance during needle interventions: technique, accuracy, and feasibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(5):W445–51. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
