UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Electromagnetic tracking in image‐guided laparoscopic surgery: Comparison with optical tracking and feasibility study of a combined laparoscope and laparoscopic ultrasound system

Xiao, G; Bonmati, E; Thompson, S; Evans, J; Hipwell, J; Nikitichev, D; Gurusamy, K; ... Clarkson, MJ; + view all (2018) Electromagnetic tracking in image‐guided laparoscopic surgery: Comparison with optical tracking and feasibility study of a combined laparoscope and laparoscopic ultrasound system. Medical Physics , 45 (11) pp. 5094-5104. 10.1002/mp.13210. Green open access

[thumbnail of Bonmati_Electromagnetic Tracking in Imaging-Guided Laparoscopic Surgery_VoR.pdf]
Preview
Text
Bonmati_Electromagnetic Tracking in Imaging-Guided Laparoscopic Surgery_VoR.pdf - Published version

Download (832kB) | Preview

Abstract

PURPOSE: In image‐guided laparoscopy, optical tracking is commonly employed, but electromagnetic (EM) systems have been proposed in the literature. In this paper, we provide a thorough comparison of EM and optical tracking systems for use in image‐guided laparoscopic surgery and a feasibility study of a combined, EM‐tracked laparoscope and laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) image guidance system. METHODS: We first assess the tracking accuracy of a laparoscope with two optical trackers tracking retroreflective markers mounted on the shaft and an EM tracker with the sensor embedded at the proximal end, using a standard evaluation plate. We then use a stylus to test the precision of position measurement and accuracy of distance measurement of the trackers. Finally, we assess the accuracy of an image guidance system comprised of an EM‐tracked laparoscope and an EM‐tracked LUS probe. RESULTS: In the experiment using a standard evaluation plate, the two optical trackers show less jitter in position and orientation measurement than the EM tracker. Also, the optical trackers demonstrate better consistency of orientation measurement within the test volume. However, their accuracy of measuring relative positions decreases significantly with longer distances whereas the EM tracker's performance is stable; at 50 mm distance, the RMS errors for the two optical trackers are 0.210 and 0.233 mm, respectively, and it is 0.214 mm for the EM tracker; at 250 mm distance, the RMS errors for the two optical trackers become 1.031 and 1.178 mm, respectively, while it is 0.367 mm for the EM tracker. In the experiment using the stylus, the two optical trackers have RMS errors of 1.278 and 1.555 mm in localizing the stylus tip, and it is 1.117 mm for the EM tracker. Our prototype of a combined, EM‐tracked laparoscope and LUS system using representative calibration methods showed a RMS point localization error of 3.0 mm for the laparoscope and 1.3 mm for the LUS probe, the lager error of the former being predominantly due to the triangulation error when using a narrow‐baseline stereo laparoscope. CONCLUSIONS: The errors incurred by optical trackers, due to the lever‐arm effect and variation in tracking accuracy in the depth direction, would make EM‐tracked solutions preferable if the EM sensor is placed at the proximal end of the laparoscope.

Type: Article
Title: Electromagnetic tracking in image‐guided laparoscopic surgery: Comparison with optical tracking and feasibility study of a combined laparoscope and laparoscopic ultrasound system
Location: United States
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1002/mp.13210
Publisher version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13210
Language: English
Additional information: © 2018 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: calibration, electromagnetic tracking, image-guided surgery, laparoscopic surgery, optical tracking
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Div of Surgery and Interventional Sci
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Div of Surgery and Interventional Sci > Department of Surgical Biotechnology
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL BEAMS
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL BEAMS > Faculty of Engineering Science
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL BEAMS > Faculty of Engineering Science > Dept of Mechanical Engineering
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL BEAMS > Faculty of Engineering Science > Dept of Med Phys and Biomedical Eng
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10057361
Downloads since deposit
51Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item