3.8 Article

HoloInjection: augmented reality support for CT-guided spinal needle injections

期刊

HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY LETTERS
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 165-171

出版社

INST ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY-IET
DOI: 10.1049/htl.2019.0062

关键词

radiation therapy; phantoms; computerised tomography; needles; augmented reality; medical image processing; image registration; CT-guided spinal needle injections; minimally-invasive interventions; needle insertions; radiological imaging; spinal targets; out-of-plane needle orientation errors; high registration accuracy; out-of-plane orientation errors; in-plane orientation errors; augmented reality support; holoinjection; mixed reality glass Microsoft HoloLens

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the STIMULATE research campus [13GW0095A]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [HA 7819/1-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The correct placement of needles is decisive for the success of many minimally-invasive interventions and therapies. These needle insertions are usually only guided by radiological imaging and can benefit from additional navigation support. Augmented reality (AR) is a promising tool to conveniently provide needed information and may thus overcome the limitations of existing approaches. To this end, a prototypical AR application was developed to guide the insertion of needles to spinal targets using the mixed reality glasses Microsoft HoloLens. The system's registration accuracy was attempted to measure and three guidance visualisation concepts were evaluated concerning achievable in-plane and out-of-plane needle orientation errors in a comparison study. Results suggested high registration accuracy and showed that the AR prototype is suitable for reducing out-of-plane orientation errors. Limitations, like comparatively high in-plane orientation errors, effects of the viewing position and missing image slices indicate potential for improvement that needs to be addressed before transferring the application to clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据