Soteriou Eric, Grauvogel Juergen, Laszig Roland, Grauvogel Tanja Daniela
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Albert-Ludwigs-University Medical School Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Department of Neurosurgery, Albert-Ludwigs-University Medical School Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Nov;273(11):3979-3986. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4063-9. Epub 2016 May 5.
The present study examined electromagnetic tracking technology for ENT navigation. Five different registration modalities were compared and navigation accuracy was assessed. Four skull models were individually fabricated with a three-dimensional printer, based on patients' computer tomography datasets. Individual silicone masks were fitted for skin and soft tissue simulation. Five registration modalities were examined: (1) invasive marker, (2) automatic, (3) surface matching (AccuMatch), (4) anatomic landmarks, and (5) oral splint registration. Overall navigation accuracy and accuracy on selected anatomic locations were assessed by targeting 26 titanium screws previously placed over the skull. Overall navigation accuracy differed significantly between all registration modalities. The target registration error was 0.94 ± 0.06 mm (quadratic mean ± standard deviation) for the invasive marker registration, 1.41 ± 0.04 mm for the automatic registration, 1.59 ± 0.14 mm for the surface matching registration, and 5.15 ± 0.66 mm (four landmarks) and 4.37 ± 0.73 mm (five landmarks) for the anatomic landmark registration. Oral splint registration proved itself to be inapplicable to this navigation system. Invasive marker registration was superior on most selected anatomic locations. However, on the ethmoid and sphenoid sinus the automatic registration process revealed significantly lower target registration error values. Only automatic and surface registration met the accuracy requirements for noninvasive registration. Particularly, the automatic image-to-world registration reaches target registration error values on the anterior skull base which are comparable with the gold standard of invasive screw registration.
本研究对耳鼻喉科导航的电磁跟踪技术进行了检测。比较了五种不同的配准方式,并评估了导航准确性。基于患者的计算机断层扫描数据集,使用三维打印机分别制作了四个颅骨模型。为模拟皮肤和软组织,分别佩戴了硅胶面罩。检测了五种配准方式:(1)侵入式标记物;(2)自动配准;(3)表面匹配(AccuMatch);(4)解剖标志点;(5)口腔夹板配准。通过将目标对准先前放置在颅骨上的26枚钛钉,评估了整体导航准确性以及选定解剖位置的准确性。所有配准方式的整体导航准确性存在显著差异。侵入式标记物配准的目标配准误差为0.94±0.06毫米(二次均值±标准差),自动配准为1.41±0.04毫米,表面匹配配准为1.59±0.14毫米,解剖标志点配准(四个标志点)为5.15±0.66毫米,(五个标志点)为4.37±0.73毫米。口腔夹板配准不适用于此导航系统。在大多数选定的解剖位置上,侵入式标记物配准表现更优。然而,在筛窦和蝶窦位置,自动配准过程显示出显著更低的目标配准误差值。只有自动配准和表面配准满足非侵入式配准的准确性要求。特别是,自动图像到世界配准在前颅底达到的目标配准误差值与侵入式螺钉配准的金标准相当。