Comparison of Smartphone Augmented Reality, Smartglasses Augmented Reality, and 3D CBCT-guided Fluoroscopy Navigation for Percutaneous Needle Insertion: A Phantom Study.

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*cm) 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*cm, 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.