Intra Operative Image Analysis Using Motion-Tracking Systems - Essay Example

?Intra Operative Image Analysis Using Motion-Tracking Systems Maxillofacial surgery has been enhanced by application of intraoperative computer-assisted navigation or tracking. There is the application of wireless passive marker system that facilitates calibration and tracking instrument during maxillofacial surgery. Intraoperative computer-assigned navigation system has been widely accepted in maxillofacial surgical procedures because of the level of its success rate. However, visual tracking systems need a line-of-sight to be controlled between the tracking apparatus and the component to be tracked. This requirement is usually never convenient thereby preventing or affecting the flexibility of the tracking instruments within the body. Unremitting observation of the operating area enabled by computer assistance facilitates surgery navigation in regard to the physician’s preoperative strategies. The option of tracking system is extreme application reliant and requires a comprehension of the desired functioning volume and accurate requirements (Chao et al, 2012, Pg. 235). The computer based anatomical display is shown in a semi-immersive head up display intraoperative. The systems enable boosted visualization ideas in surgical resection of tumors that has been essential in oral and maxillofacial areas. Generally, the system is useful in preoperative strategy and intraoperative monitoring. The creation of image-guided neurosurgery corresponds to a substantial enhancement in the microsurgical cure of vascular malformations, tumours, and other intracranial lesions. Key Words: Oral and Maxillofacial, Intraoperative computer-assisted, tracking system, line-of-site Introduction The 3-D navigation is essential for the maxillofacial surgeries since it’s necessary for the region reconstruction, which is a sensitive matter that needs high priority. In addition, navigating anatomical structure of the region is also complicated. Therefore, aesthetic value of reconstruction of the facial morphology needs computer-assistant tracking for the maxillofacial surgery. Intraoperative imaging and neuronavigation systems should improve accomplishment in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Additionally, experienced and skilled handlers and complex instruments are needed to perform maxillofacial surgeries. Useful imaging modalities include CT, DTI-for fibre tracking, SPECT, and FMRI. Notably, these modalities are currently used in to minimize neurological deficits consequential from surgery; however, the optimistic long-term result remains open to discussion of many indications (Foxlin, 2002, Pg. 163). Computer surgery or image guided surgery is performed since its safety and accuracy that usually leads to suitable ablative surgeries. CAS is the technology that is applied in computer surgery for preoperative planning, guidance, and execution of surgical interventions. Computer-assisted navigation system has proven to be more accurate, secure, and appropriate in performing maxillofacial surgery (Deguchi et al, 2006; pg. 112). Therefore, this paper’s objective is to describe the application of the technology and assess its worthiness in the ablative operations in maxillofacial regions. The system is effective in nasal cavity and the assessment of bone excision; however, not much has been related to oral surgery. Methodology The concept of Computer-assisted navigation system (CAS) involves application of non-invasive system to connect a freehand probe navigated by a passive calibration sensor system based on preoperative image information. It was originally applied in neurosurgery systems; however, as oral and maxillofacial surgery advances, its application has become vital. It involves the inclusion of the 3D preoperative image data amalgamated with the patient’s anatomy by registration. The system has gotten recognition compare to conventional devices and has improved maxillofacial surgery tremendously (Annette et al, 2007, Pg. 630). The necessity for image direction during neurosurgical surgical procedure has always been an apprehension for neurosurgeons and has developed through several strategies over the last six decades (Baert, Viergever, & Niessen, 2003; Pg. 968). These developments also enhance the maxillofacial surgery procedures. CAS was initially developed for the neurosurgery. It replaces many imaging modalities such as CT-Computed tomography, MRI-Magnetic resonance imaging and PET-positron emission tomography, during surgery, and facilitates images to be altered and displayed. The images can be easily applied in generation of 3D images of target tumours or tissues. The recognition factor of the system is better than the conventional instruments or devices. During the use of the CAS, transmission of information is done by a tracker that identifies the position of the patient’s head. The use of digital communication technology, LED recognition and pointers with various shapes has improved the level of recognition. Case Study: The case study to which this paper is based involved a patient with squarmous cell carcinoma in the centre segment of upper gingival. The surgery was conducted by Stryker navigation cart system. Head band assist to restrain the head, registration is done by pointer and extent of tumor is preset, by the pointer indicating actual position. This enabled physicians to know extent of resection so as to treat direct areas not viewable. The soft and maxilla tissues are segmented by use of CT image and automatically recognized 3D from the images; thus, making tumour sections easily extracted. The resection of tumor was done with no indications of recurrence for over 2 years. Discussion No system has ever been rated perfect. The CAS is unexceptional, but it requires assessment towards improvement. It is one of the expensive systems for surgery purposes and it is complex to understand. These are areas that require improvement to ensure that the system serve many patients including the poor. Errors associated with computers are equally presence and also the marker sensor could lead to error margins; hence, they should be assessed carefully during the procedures. It is likely that deviations encountered in position between the geometric core and position recognized from sterilization and application of markers could attribute lower accuracy levels. It is recorded that rebooting, reconfiguration, and aborting are effective approaches applied to resolve the errors in the system. However, correlation between model-type and these problems have not been established. Applicable intraoperative steps to augment accuracy that do not depend on tracking comprise bands or a pin that constrains head movement; thus, makes markers not to shift. This surgery procedure needs bimanual surgical capabilities (Bourla at al, 2008, Pg. 158). However, the free hand provides, for non-ambidextrous individuals, an improved control, and in various cases, the doctor will desire to carry out the most demanding part of the surgery using hand and will generally use the next hand as an aid (Greene & Chelikani, 2008, Pg. 265). The application of mechanical digitizers assisted frameless stereotaxy by confining either a working microscope’s focus, or a surgical pin within the patient’s cranium. The system has been found to be applicable mostly to remove tumors on patients’ facial region. Early CAS systems applied mechanical digitizers to substitute the necessity for the bersome environment of mechanical digitizers for the ancient time; however, attention in substitute tracking methods led to the initiation of ultrasonic transducers for localization. The ultrasonic resolutions rely on the pace of sound, which relies on relative air humidity and ambient temperature and is prone to impediment; thereby missing the sturdiness of mechanical digitizers (Deguchi, et al, 2006; pg. 109). The dependability of automatic digitizers, such as the Faro arm determines their results. Reports from many documentaries suggest that the ISG Viewing Wand is applied for many non-neurosurgical involvements in cranio- and maxillofacial surgery. It should be noted that this procedure have served and helped as well as spearheaded the improvement of many commercial products (Hubschmanet et al, 2007; pg. 48). During initial trials, a localization correctness of approximately Mayfield clamp, a fastener of framed stereotaxy process. A minimally invasive endoscopic approach has recently been advanced to facilitate success in tumor ablative surgery of oral and maxillofacial regions. The SNC System apply optical platform to spatially localize the client. The system uses reflectors or infrared emitting diodes between the surgical probe and the patient. The most essential feature of in CAS is the development of precise models of patients. This is achievable due to the advanced imaging techniques available. Cross infection control involves control measures undertaken to avoid additional infection due to contact with other patients or contaminated objects. The computer involvement in doing the surgery reduces the scrubbing necessity. This increases time for preparation before surgical procedure. De-scrubbing not necessary since the procedure is computed and automated. Conclusion CAS has been found to be the most reliable maxillofacial surgery system. Motion tracking systems are very crucial for successful surgery procedures. There are various instruments applicable for the job from optical to electromagnetics and manual. However, visual tracking systems need a line-of-sight to be controlled between the tracking apparatus and the component to be tracked. Notably, these procedures are normally not convenient thereby preventing or affecting the flexibility of the tracking instruments within the body. Therefore, electromagnetic tracing systems were created with no line-of-sight prerequisite to track instruments such as the tips of needles and catheters inside the body. The option of tracking system application is extremely reliant and requires a comprehension of the desired functioning volume and accuracy requirements. List of References ANNETTE MP, AMIR AR, MARC CM, AMIR J, BRADLY S. (2007) Computer modelling and intraoperative navigation in maxillofacial surgery. Otalaryngol Head Neck Surg 137:624-631 BAERT SA, VIERGEVER MA, NIESSEN WJ. (2003). “Guide-wire tracking during and vascular interventions.” IEEE. Trans MED Imaging, 22 (8), 965–72. BOURGES J-L, HUBSCHMAN J-P, BURT B, and CULJAT M, SCHWARTZ S. (2008). Robotic microsurgery: corneal transplantation. Br. J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93 (12:1672–1675. [PubMed] BOURLA DH, HUBSCHMAN JP, CULJAT M, TSIRBAS A, GUPTA A, SCHWARTZ SD. (2008) Feasibility study of intraocular robotic surgery with the da Vinci surgical system. Retina. 2008; 28:154–158. [PubMed] CARDOSO, M. J., WINSTON, G., MODAT, M., KEIHANINEJAD, S., DUNCAN, J., OURSELIN, S. (2012). Geodesic shape-based averaging. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. (Vol. 15 pp.26-33). CHAO LU, SUDHAKAR CHELIKANI, DAVID A. JAFFRAY, MICHAEL F. MILOSEVIC, LAWRENCE H. STAIB, and JAMES S. Duncan: Simultaneous Nonrigid Registration, Segmentation, and Tumor Detection in MRI Guided Cervical Cancer Radiation Therapy. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 31(6): 1213-1227 (2012) DEGUCHI D, AKIYAMA K, MORI K, KITASAKA T, SUENAGA Y, MAURER CR JR, TAKABATAKE H, MORI M, NATORI H. (2006). “A method for bronchoscope tracking by combining a position sensor and image registration.” Comput Aided Surg, 11 (3), 109–17. FOXLIN E. (2002). Motion tracking requirements and technologiesIn: Associates LE (ed.).Handbook of Virtual Environment Technology K Stanney: New York; 2002. 163–210.210. GREENE W. H, CHELIKANI S. (2008). Xenophon Papademetris: Tracking organ overlap for a constrained non-rigid registration algorithm. 1159-1162 HUBSCHMAN J, BOURLA D, TSIRBAS A, CULJAT M, DUTSON E, KREIGER AE, SCHWARTZ SD. ROBOTIC. (2007). Vitreoretinal Surgerysci IOV. ARVO Annual Meeting. Fort Lauderdale. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007. 48. HUMMEL J, FIGL M, BIRKFELLNER W, BAX MR, SHAHIDI R, MAURER CR JR, BERGMANN H. (2006). “Evaluation of a new electromagnetic tracking system using a standardized assessment protocol.” Phys MED Biol, 51 (10), N205–10. Read More