4.1 Article

Mixed-Reality-Assisted Puncture of the Common Femoral Artery in a Phantom Model

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMAGING
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jimaging8020047

Keywords

mixed reality; virtual reality; vascular surgery; vascular access; femoral artery; endovascular

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the feasibility and positional error of a mixed-reality (MR)-assisted puncture of the common femoral artery using a commercially available navigation system in a phantom model. The results showed that MR-assisted puncture is feasible with acceptable positional errors in the model.
Percutaneous femoral arterial access is daily practice in a variety of medical specialties and enables physicians worldwide to perform endovascular interventions. The reported incidence of percutaneous femoral arterial access complications is 3-18% and often results from suboptimal puncture location due to insufficient visualization of the target vessel. The purpose of this proof-of-concept study was to evaluate the feasibility and the positional error of a mixed-reality (MR)-assisted puncture of the common femoral artery in a phantom model using a commercially available navigation system. In total, 15 MR-assisted punctures were performed. Cone-beam computed tomography angiography (CTA) was used following each puncture to allow quantification of positional error of needle placements in the axial and sagittal planes. Technical success was achieved in 14/15 cases (93.3%) with a median axial positional error of 1.0 mm (IQR 1.3) and a median sagittal positional error of 1.1 mm (IQR 1.6). The median duration of the registration process and needle insertion was 2 min (IQR 1.0). MR-assisted puncture of the common femoral artery is feasible with acceptable positional errors in a phantom model. Future studies should aim to measure and reduce the positional error resulting from MR registration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available