Send to

Choose Destination
Radiology. 2016 Oct;281(1):249-55. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151040. Epub 2016 Apr 18.

Augmented Reality on a C-Arm System: A Preclinical Assessment for Percutaneous Needle Localization.

Author information

From the Department of Radiology, Division of Pediatric Interventional Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45229-3030 (John Racadio, R.S., Judy Racadio); and Interventional X-Ray Department, Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands (R.N., R.H., D.B.).


Purpose To compare the navigational accuracy and radiation dose during needle localization of targets for augmented reality (AR) with and without motion compensation (MC) versus those for cone-beam computed tomography (CT) with real-time fluoroscopy navigation in a pig model. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Three operators each localized 15 targets (bone fragments) approximately 7 cm deep in the paraspinal muscles of nine Yorkshire pigs by using each of the three modalities (AR with and without MC and cone-beam CT with fluoroscopy). Target depth, accuracy (distance between needle tip and target), and radiation dose (dose-area product [DAP]) were recorded for each procedure. Correlation between accuracy and depth of target was assessed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Two-way analysis of variance was used for differentiating accuracy and DAPs across navigation techniques and operator backgrounds. Results There was no correlation between depth of target and accuracy. There was no significant difference in accuracy between modalities (mean distance, 3.0 mm ± 1.9 [standard deviation] for cone-beam CT with fluoroscopy, 2.5 mm ± 2.0 for AR, and 3.2 mm ± 2.7 for AR with MC [P = .33]). There was, however, a significant difference in fluoroscopy radiation dose (10.4 Gy · cm(2) ± 10.6 for cone-beam CT fluoroscopy, 2.3 Gy · cm(2) ± 2.4 for AR, and 3.3 Gy · cm(2) ± 4.6 for AR with MC [P < .05]) and therefore in total procedural radiation dose (20.5 Gy · cm(2) ± 13.4 for cone-beam CT fluoroscopy, 12.6 Gy · cm(2) ± 5.3 for AR, 13.6 Gy · cm(2) ± 7.4 for AR with MC [P < .05]). Conclusion Use of an AR C-arm system reduces radiation dose while maintaining navigational accuracy compared with cone-beam CT fluoroscopy during image-guided percutaneous needle placement in a pig model. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center