Comparison of wired and wireless electromagnetic hand motion tracking in central venous access: Are they equivalent enough to cut the cord?

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to compare a commercially available wired and wireless tracker in motion analysis of interventional radiologists performing simulated ultrasound-guided central venous access.

Methods and material

Interventional radiologists were asked to volunteer for the study. Participants were asked to place central venous lines on a commercially available, standardized manikin as their needle hand and ultrasound probe motion were recorded using electromagnetic trackers. Each participant performed a total of 10 trials, with 5 trials recorded using a wired tracker and 5 using a wireless tracker. Institution-developed software was used to calculate established motion metrics (path length and number of movements). The motion metrics from the two trackers were compared.

Results

Seven interventional radiologists participated in the study. Path length (wireless vs. wired: 773.1 cm ± 85.7 cm vs. 959.5 cm ± 303.6 cm, p < 0.001) and number of movements (193 ± 52 vs. 231 ± 50.5, p = 0.001) differed significantly between the two trackers; however, the time to complete the procedure (51.8 s ± 14.8 s vs. 49.8 s ± 10.5 s, p = 0.68) was similar across trackers.

Conclusion

The motion metrics of the same operators differ significantly between wired and wireless trackers. Accounting for the sampling frame rate and the frame efficiency of the wireless sensors can provide comparable motion data.