Laetitia Saccenti, Hugo Bessy, Bilel Ben Jedidia, Benjamin Longere, Lionel Tortolano, Haytham Derbel, Alain Luciani, Hicham Kobeiter, Thierry Grandpierre, Vania Tacher
{"title":"Performance Comparison of Augmented Reality Versus Ultrasound Guidance for Puncture: A Phantom Study.","authors":"Laetitia Saccenti, Hugo Bessy, Bilel Ben Jedidia, Benjamin Longere, Lionel Tortolano, Haytham Derbel, Alain Luciani, Hicham Kobeiter, Thierry Grandpierre, Vania Tacher","doi":"10.1007/s00270-024-03727-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Augmented reality (AR) is an innovative approach that could assist percutaneous procedures; by directly seeing \"through\" a phantom, targeting a lesion might be more intuitive than using ultrasound (US). The objective of this study was to compare the performance of experienced interventional radiologists and operators untrained in soft tissue lesion puncture using AR guidance and standard US guidance.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Three trained interventional radiologists with 5-10 years of experience and three untrained operators performed punctures of five targets in an abdominal phantom, with US guidance and AR guidance. Correct targeting, accuracy (defined as the Euclidean distance between the tip and the center of the target), planning time, and puncture time were documented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Accuracy was higher for the trained group than the untrained group using US guidance (1 mm versus 4 mm, p = 0.001), but not when using AR guidance (4 mm vs. 4 mm, p = 0.76). All operators combined, no significant difference was found concerning accuracy between US and AR guidance (2 mm vs. 4 mm, p = 0.09), but planning time and puncture time were significantly shorter using AR (respectively, 15.1 s vs. 74 s, p < 0.001; 16.1 s vs. 59 s; p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Untrained and trained operators obtained comparable accuracy in percutaneous punctures when using AR guidance whereas US performance was better in the experienced group. All operators together, accuracy was similar between US and AR guidance, but shorter planning time, puncture time were found for AR guidance.</p>","PeriodicalId":9591,"journal":{"name":"CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-024-03727-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Augmented reality (AR) is an innovative approach that could assist percutaneous procedures; by directly seeing "through" a phantom, targeting a lesion might be more intuitive than using ultrasound (US). The objective of this study was to compare the performance of experienced interventional radiologists and operators untrained in soft tissue lesion puncture using AR guidance and standard US guidance.
Material and methods: Three trained interventional radiologists with 5-10 years of experience and three untrained operators performed punctures of five targets in an abdominal phantom, with US guidance and AR guidance. Correct targeting, accuracy (defined as the Euclidean distance between the tip and the center of the target), planning time, and puncture time were documented.
Results: Accuracy was higher for the trained group than the untrained group using US guidance (1 mm versus 4 mm, p = 0.001), but not when using AR guidance (4 mm vs. 4 mm, p = 0.76). All operators combined, no significant difference was found concerning accuracy between US and AR guidance (2 mm vs. 4 mm, p = 0.09), but planning time and puncture time were significantly shorter using AR (respectively, 15.1 s vs. 74 s, p < 0.001; 16.1 s vs. 59 s; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Untrained and trained operators obtained comparable accuracy in percutaneous punctures when using AR guidance whereas US performance was better in the experienced group. All operators together, accuracy was similar between US and AR guidance, but shorter planning time, puncture time were found for AR guidance.
目的:增强现实(AR)是一种创新方法,可协助经皮手术;通过直接 "看透 "一个模型,瞄准病灶可能比使用超声(US)更直观。本研究的目的是比较经验丰富的介入放射医师和未经培训的操作人员在使用 AR 引导和标准 US 引导进行软组织病变穿刺时的表现:材料和方法:三名受过培训、有 5-10 年经验的介入放射医师和三名未受过培训的操作人员在腹部模型中使用 US 引导和 AR 引导对五个目标进行了穿刺。记录了瞄准的正确性、准确性(定义为针尖与目标中心之间的欧氏距离)、计划时间和穿刺时间:结果:使用 US 引导时,训练组的准确率高于未训练组(1 毫米对 4 毫米,p = 0.001),但使用 AR 引导时,训练组的准确率低于未训练组(4 毫米对 4 毫米,p = 0.76)。综合所有操作者的情况,发现 US 引导和 AR 引导在准确性上没有明显差异(2 毫米对 4 毫米,p = 0.09),但使用 AR 引导时,计划时间和穿刺时间明显更短(分别为 15.1 秒对 74 秒,p 结论:未经训练和训练有素的操作者在使用 AR 引导时经皮穿刺的准确性相当,而经验丰富的操作者在使用 US 引导时表现更好。在所有操作者中,US 和 AR 引导的准确性相似,但 AR 引导的计划时间和穿刺时间更短。
期刊介绍:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology (CVIR) is the official journal of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, and is also the official organ of a number of additional distinguished national and international interventional radiological societies. CVIR publishes double blinded peer-reviewed original research work including clinical and laboratory investigations, technical notes, case reports, works in progress, and letters to the editor, as well as review articles, pictorial essays, editorials, and special invited submissions in the field of vascular and interventional radiology. Beside the communication of the latest research results in this field, it is also the aim of CVIR to support continuous medical education. Articles that are accepted for publication are done so with the understanding that they, or their substantive contents, have not been and will not be submitted to any other publication.