Augmented Reality in Stereotactic Neurosurgery: Current Status and Issues

Stereotactic neurosurgery is an established technique, but it has several limitations. In frame-based stereotaxy using a stereotactic frame, frame setting errors may decrease the accuracy of the procedure. Frameless stereotaxy using neuronavigation requires surgeons to shift their view from the surgical field to the navigation display and to advance the needle while assuming a physically uncomfortable position. To overcome these limitations, several researchers have applied augmented reality in stereotactic neurosurgery. Augmented reality enables surgeons to visualize the information regarding the target and preplanned trajectory superimposed over the actual surgical field. In frame-based stereotaxy, a researcher applies tablet computer-based augmented reality to check for the setting errors of the stereotactic frame, thereby improving the safety of the procedure. Several researchers have reported performing frameless stereotaxy guided by head-mounted-display-based augmented reality that enables surgeons to advance the needle at a more natural posture. These studies have shown that augmented reality can address the limitations of stereotactic neurosurgery. Conversely, they have also revealed the limited accuracy of current augmented reality systems for small targets, which indicates that further development of augmented reality systems is needed.

Application of Augmented Reality to Stereotactic Biopsy

Both frame-based stereotaxy and frameless stereotaxy are established surgical procedures. However, they each have their respective disadvantages when used in the biopsy of a deep-seated lesion. To overcome the drawbacks associated with these procedures, we evaluated the feasibility of applying augmented reality (AR) to stereotactic biopsy. We applied our trans-visible navigator (TVN) to frame-based stereotactic biopsy in five cases of deep-seated lesions. This navigation system uses the AR concept, allowing surgeons to view three-dimensional virtual models of anatomical structures superimposed over the surgical field on a tablet personal computer. Using TVN, we could easily confirm a clear trajectory avoiding the important structures as well as the target point’s location in the lesion. Use of the stereotactic apparatus allowed the surgeon to easily advance the biopsy probe to the target point. Consequently, a satisfactory histopathological diagnosis without complication was achieved in all cases. In conclusion, applying AR to stereotactic biopsy is feasible and may improve the safety of the procedure.

Image-guided surgery and medical robotics in the cranial area

Surgery in the cranial area includes complex anatomic situations with high-risk structures and high demands for functional and aesthetic results. Conventional surgery requires that the surgeon transfers complex anatomic and surgical planning information, using spatial sense and experience. The surgical procedure depends entirely on the manual skills of the operator. The development of image-guided surgery provides new revolutionary opportunities by integrating presurgical 3D imaging and intraoperative manipulation. Augmented reality, mechatronic surgical tools, and medical robotics may continue to progress in surgical instrumentation, and ultimately, surgical care. The aim of this article is to review and discuss state-of-the-art surgical navigation and medical robotics, image-to-patient registration, aspects of accuracy, and clinical applications for surgery in the cranial area.

Assessment of Image Guided Accuracy in a Skull Model: Comparison of Frameless Stereotaxy Techniques vs. Frame-Based Localization

INTRODUCTION

The use of image-guided systems (IGS) for brain biopsy has increased in neurosurgical practice. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of a plastic, disposable burr hole mounted guide for stereotactic biopsy using an IGS and compare the results of different targeting methods with those of frame based localization.

METHODS

MRIs were performed on a skull model with mounted fiducials with a stereotactic frame in place and data was loaded onto the Stealth IGS. The model was placed in a Mayfield head holder and fixed to the OR table. Registration of imaging to physical space was carried out. Using three different targeting methods on the Stealth IGS, the distance between the target and the predicted position of the target, the offset error, was measured in three dimensions and confirmed by 2 observers. A sum of squares for the 3 offset errors in all planes was used to calculate the summed vector error. The same MRI dataset used with the Cosman-Roberts-Wells (CRW) stereotactic frame for comparison. The summed vector error was calculated in the same manner to compare the accuracy of targeting with these guides to the frame-based CRW system.

RESULTS

For frameless stereotaxy using the "Straight- guide 4 2D" targeting method the mean error was 2.58 +/- 0.51 mm (n=12). The vector error was 5.23 +/- 0.54 (n=4). For the registration set and target using the "Offset- guide 4 2D" targeting method the mean error was 1.66 +/- 0.36 mm (n=12). The vector error was 3.32 +/- 0.72 (n=4). The best localization was obtained with the "probe's eye" planning and targeting. The mean error was 0.33 +/- 0.16 mm (n=12). The vector error was 1.0 +/- 0.28 (n=4). We found a statistical difference between the different techniques (P<0.001) (Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks). An all pairwise multiple comparison procedure (Holm-Sidak method) found an overall significance level = 0.05. For the frame-based CRW the mean error from the target was 1.03 +/- 0.19 mm (n=18) and the mean target localization error vector was 2.23 +/- 0.14 (n=6). We found a statistically significant difference between NDT guide "Probes Eye" vs. the MR-CRW (P=0.003, Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that using MR imaging, surgical planning software and the skull mounted Navigus-DT with the probe's eye view option for targeting, localization accuracy appears to fall within acceptable ranges compared with frame-based methods which have been the standards for stereotactic brain biopsy and functional neurosurgery. Furthermore, there may be considerable differences in accuracy between different targeting methods.