ACCURACY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC TRACKING IN AN IMAGE-GUIDED SURGERY SUITE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recently, electromagnetic tracking for surgical procedures has gained popularity due to its small sensor size and the absence of line-of-sight restrictions. However, EM trackers are susceptible to measurement noise. Indeed, depending on the environment, measurement uncertainties may vary considerably. Therefore, it is important to characterise electromagnetic measurement systems when used in a fluoroscopy setting. The purpose of our study is to assess decoupled static electromagnetic measurement errors in position and orientation, without adding potential interference, in the presence of fluoroscopic imaging equipment. Using an Aurora electromagnetic tracking system (Northern Digital, Waterloo, Canada), 5 degrees of freedom measurements were collected in a working space located midway between the source and the receiver of a flat-panel 3D fluoroscope (Innova 4100, GE Healthcare, Buc, France) emitting X-rays. In addition, to determine potential EM distortion from X-rays, electromagnetic measurement accuracies, as a function of position, were compared before, during, and after X-ray emissions. To decouple position and orientation errors, two scaffold devices were designed. Their centre was placed approximately at X = −50, Y = 0, and Z = −300 mm in the EM tracker9s global coordinate system. First the positioning scaffold was used to assess the position and orientation measurement uncertainties as a function of position. Next, the orienting scaffold was used to assess the position and orientation measurement uncertainties as a function of orientation. Then, a least-squares method was employed to register the path position measurements to the known geometry of the scaffolds. As a result, the position accuracy was defined as the Euclidean distance between the registered and the ground truth positions. Finally, the orientation accuracy was defined as the difference between two direct angles: the angle between two measured consecutive paths, and the angle of the corresponding ground truth. When translating the sensor using the positioning scaffold, the resulting position accuracy was characterised by a mean of 3.2 mm. Similarly, when rotating the sensor using the orienting scaffold, the resulting orientation accuracy was characterised by a mean of 1.7 deg. As for the “cross-displacement” errors, the orientation accuracy as a function of position had a mean of 1.8 deg. Likewise, the position as a function of orientation had a mean of 4.0 mm. Position and orientation accuracies – as a function of position, before, during, and after emission of X-rays – indicate that there was no significant interference by the presence of an X-ray beam on the EM measurements. This work provides evidence that placing the EM system into X-ray beams does not affect EM measurement accuracies. Nevertheless, the fluoroscope itself significantly increases the EM measurement errors. Careful analysis of the EM measurement distribution errors suggests that associated uncertainties are predictable and preventable. In essence, EM tracking is promising for orthopedic procedures that may require the use of a fluoroscope.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».