Which navigation when?

Tobias Hüfner; Florian Gebhard; Paul A Grützner; Peter Messmer; Ulrich Stöckle; Christian Krettek

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2004.05.008

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15183701

Which navigation when?

Tobias Hüfner·Florian Gebhard·Paul A Grützner·Peter Messmer·Ulrich Stöckle·Christian Krettek

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

If a surgeon is considering purchasing a navigation system, several factors have to be evaluated including, the planned applications, the equipment already installed, and the specific knowledge of the surgeon. For use in traumatology, fluoroscopy and more specifically 3-D fluoro-based computer guidance is preferable. These technologies are based on intraoperative acquired arbitrary images in contrast to CT-based techniques, which refer to preoperative acquired images that represent a so called "cannel reality". However, image quality has to be considered as fluoro-picture quality depending on the anatomical area (eg long bones, spine, pelvis) and body mass index. CT-based navigation provides better image quality and accuracy but is not able to visualize reduction processes. Therefore personal experience in courses or by on-site teaching is recommended prior taking the decision.

Explore related subjects

Fluoroscopy Humans Imaging, Three-Dimensional Orthopedic Procedures Surgery, Computer-Assisted Tomography, X-Ray Computed Wounds and Injuries Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Tobias Hüfner, Florian Gebhard, Paul A Grützner, Peter Messmer, Ulrich Stöckle, Christian Krettek. 2004. Which navigation when?. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2004.05.008

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

Radiation exposure to the hands of orthopaedic surgeons: are we underestimating the risk?

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies reported that the radiation exposure to the hands of orthopaedic surgeons was far below the acceptable limit. However, the risk could have been underestimated as some factors were overlooked, namely monitoring trainees during average workload, placing dosimeters over the most susceptible locations, measuring the cumulative dosage of radiation and considering the dose limit for non-classified workers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study in two centres to estimate the radiation dose to the hands of two consultant trauma surgeons and two trainees (one assisting and one operating) while performing 47 fluoroscopy-assisted procedures. We used validated thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) rings and fingerstalls for monitoring the cumulative dosage. RESULTS: Trainees were at higher risk while performing intramedullary nailing and during assistance. Higher radiation doses were recorded from dominant index fingers and particularly fingertips. CONCLUSION: The risk of radiation exposure appears to be higher than previously reported. Fingertips are more susceptible to radiation exposure and should therefore be monitored in forthcoming studies.

Fluoroscopy↗

PubMed2005

Radiation exposure to the hands from mini C-arm fluoroscopy.

PURPOSE: To quantify the level of radiation exposure to the hands of hand surgeons using intraoperative mini C-arm fluoroscopy and to compare the actual level of exposure with predicted levels and acceptable limits. METHODS: Five hand surgeons were given ring dosimeters to measure radiation exposure to their hands during surgery of the finger, hand, and wrist. A total of 81 rings were analyzed. After the clinical study a phantom was used to measure scatter at close range from the mini C-arm. RESULTS: Surgeons' hands were exposed to an average +/- SD of 20 +/- 12.3 mrem/case. For comparison a chest x-ray results in approximately 20 mrem exposure to the patient. Radiation exposure for the group of hand surgeons ranged from 5 to 80 mrem. Surgeons used an average of 51 +/- 36.9 seconds of fluoroscopy time per case. Exposure time for the group ranged from 6 to 170 seconds. The radiation scatter rate decreases precipitously outside the beam or beyond the radius of the intensifier. An average exposure to the hands of 20 mrem/case suggests that surgeons' hands must be entering the beam and getting direct exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Hand surgeons work close to the beam and as a result their hands potentially are exposed to a nontrivial amount of radiation. We recommend that surgeons who use the mini C-arm use precautions to minimize radiation exposure, particularly to their hands.

Fluoroscopy↗

PubMed2005

Dosimetric impact of geometric errors due to respiratory motion prediction on dynamic multileaf collimator-based four-dimensional radiation delivery.

The synchronization of dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) response with respiratory motion is critical to ensure the accuracy of DMLC-based four dimensional (4D) radiation delivery. In practice, however, a finite time delay (response time) between the acquisition of tumor position and multileaf collimator response necessitates predictive models of respiratory tumor motion to synchronize radiation delivery. Predicting a complex process such as respiratory motion introduces geometric errors, which have been reported in several publications. However, the dosimetric effect of such errors on 4D radiation delivery has not yet been investigated. Thus, our aim in this work was to quantify the dosimetric effects of geometric error due to prediction under several different conditions. Conformal and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for a lung patient were generated for anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) beam arrangements at 6 and 18 MV energies to provide planned dose distributions. Respiratory motion data was obtained from 60 diaphragm-motion fluoroscopy recordings from five patients. A linear adaptive filter was employed to predict the tumor position. The geometric error of prediction was defined as the absolute difference between predicted and actual positions at each diaphragm position. Distributions of geometric error of prediction were obtained for all of the respiratory motion data. Planned dose distributions were then convolved with distributions for the geometric error of prediction to obtain convolved dose distributions. The dosimetric effect of such geometric errors was determined as a function of several variables: response time (0-0.6 s), beam energy (6/18 MV), treatment delivery (3D/4D), treatment type (conformal/IMRT), beam direction (AP/PA), and breathing training type (free breathing/audio instruction/visual feedback). Dose difference and distance-to-agreement analysis was employed to quantify results. Based on our data, the dosimetric impact of prediction (a) increased with response time, (b) was larger for 3D radiation therapy as compared with 4D radiation therapy, (c) was relatively insensitive to change in beam energy and beam direction, (d) was greater for IMRT distributions as compared with conformal distributions, (e) was smaller than the dosimetric impact of latency, and (f) was greatest for respiration motion with audio instructions, followed by visual feedback and free breathing. Geometric errors of prediction that occur during 4D radiation delivery introduce dosimetric errors that are dependent on several factors, such as response time, treatment-delivery type, and beam energy. Even for relatively small response times of 0.6 s into the future, dosimetric errors due to prediction could approach delivery errors when respiratory motion is not accounted for at all. To reduce the dosimetric impact, better predictive models and/or shorter response times are required.

Fluoroscopy↗