Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery

Summary Background Surgical navigation requires registration of the pre-operative image dataset with the patient in the operation theatre. Various marker and marker-free registration techniques are available, each bearing an individual level of precision and clinical practicability. In this study th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery 2008-03, Vol.36 (2), p.109-116
Hauptverfasser: Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD, Messmer, Peter, PD MD, Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD, Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD, Kikinis, Ron, MD, Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD, Matthews, Felix, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 116
container_issue 2
container_start_page 109
container_title Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery
container_volume 36
creator Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD
Messmer, Peter, PD MD
Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD
Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD
Kikinis, Ron, MD
Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD
Matthews, Felix, MD
description Summary Background Surgical navigation requires registration of the pre-operative image dataset with the patient in the operation theatre. Various marker and marker-free registration techniques are available, each bearing an individual level of precision and clinical practicability. In this study the precision of four different registration methods in a maxillofacial surgical setting is analyzed. Materials and methods A synthetic full size human skull model was registered with its computer tomography-dataset using (a) a dentally mounted occlusal splint, (b) the laser surface scanning, (c) five facial bone implants and (d) a combination of dental splint and two orbital bone implants. The target registration error was computed for 170 landmarks spread over the entire viscero- and neurocranium in 10 repeats using the VectorVision2® (BrainLAB AG, Heimstetten, Germany) navigation system. Statistical and graphical analyses were performed by anatomical region. Results An average precision of 1 mm was found for the periorbital region irrespective of registration method (range 0.6–1.1 mm). Beyond the mid-face, precision linearly decreases with the distance from the reference markers. The combination of splint with two orbital bone markers significantly improved precision from 1.3 to 0.8 mm ( p < 0.001) on the viscerocranium and 2.3–1.2 mm ( p < 0.001) on the neurocranium. Conclusions An occlusal splint alone yields poor precision for navigation beyond the mid-face. The precision can be increased by combining an occlusal splint with just two bone implants inserted percutaneously on the lateral orbital rim of each side.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jcms.2007.09.002
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70351610</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1010518207001552</els_id><sourcerecordid>70351610</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-7e2e17e28193ed2ab43ddac978fe457e07812bf7b0daa06e0f58b3985fa662b43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk2r1DAUhoMo3uvVP-BCutFd60k6aVIQ4TL4BRdcqOuQJidjapuMSXtx_r0pMyi4cJOEnOc9hCeHkOcUGgq0ez02o5lzwwBEA30DwB6QayqFrHeU9g_LGSjUnEp2RZ7kPAJAB7J_TK7KlQQq2mti93E-6uRzDFV0lfXOYcKwVAkPPi9JL75UZly-R5srF1OV13TwRk9V0Pf-cK77UJmkg4_1rH_5aYpOG1-QjcV0ekoeOT1lfHbZb8i39---7j_Wd58_fNrf3tWG7_qlFsiQlkXSvkXL9LBrrdWmF9LhjgsEISkbnBjAag0dguNyaHvJne46Vugb8urc95jizxXzomafDU6TDhjXrAS0nHYUCsjOoEkx54ROHZOfdTopCmpzq0a1uVWbWwW9Km5L6MWl-zrMaP9GLjIL8PIC6FwEuWLE-PyHYwWSouWFe3PmsLi495hUNh6DQesTmkXZ6P__jrf_xM3kw_YlP_CEeYxrCsWyoiozBerLNgXbEIAAoJyz9jchra7A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70351610</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD ; Messmer, Peter, PD MD ; Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD ; Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD ; Kikinis, Ron, MD ; Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD ; Matthews, Felix, MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD ; Messmer, Peter, PD MD ; Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD ; Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD ; Kikinis, Ron, MD ; Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD ; Matthews, Felix, MD</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background Surgical navigation requires registration of the pre-operative image dataset with the patient in the operation theatre. Various marker and marker-free registration techniques are available, each bearing an individual level of precision and clinical practicability. In this study the precision of four different registration methods in a maxillofacial surgical setting is analyzed. Materials and methods A synthetic full size human skull model was registered with its computer tomography-dataset using (a) a dentally mounted occlusal splint, (b) the laser surface scanning, (c) five facial bone implants and (d) a combination of dental splint and two orbital bone implants. The target registration error was computed for 170 landmarks spread over the entire viscero- and neurocranium in 10 repeats using the VectorVision2® (BrainLAB AG, Heimstetten, Germany) navigation system. Statistical and graphical analyses were performed by anatomical region. Results An average precision of 1 mm was found for the periorbital region irrespective of registration method (range 0.6–1.1 mm). Beyond the mid-face, precision linearly decreases with the distance from the reference markers. The combination of splint with two orbital bone markers significantly improved precision from 1.3 to 0.8 mm ( p &lt; 0.001) on the viscerocranium and 2.3–1.2 mm ( p &lt; 0.001) on the neurocranium. Conclusions An occlusal splint alone yields poor precision for navigation beyond the mid-face. The precision can be increased by combining an occlusal splint with just two bone implants inserted percutaneously on the lateral orbital rim of each side.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1010-5182</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-4119</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2007.09.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18280173</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JCMSET</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Bone Screws ; comparative study ; Contrast Media ; Dentistry ; Facial Bones - surgery ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods ; Lasers ; Medical sciences ; Models, Anatomic ; Occlusal Splints ; Orbit ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Patient Care Planning ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Surgery ; Surgery, Computer-Assisted ; surgery, maxillofacial ; tomography, X-ray ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery, 2008-03, Vol.36 (2), p.109-116</ispartof><rights>European Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery</rights><rights>2007 European Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery</rights><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-7e2e17e28193ed2ab43ddac978fe457e07812bf7b0daa06e0f58b3985fa662b43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-7e2e17e28193ed2ab43ddac978fe457e07812bf7b0daa06e0f58b3985fa662b43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2007.09.002$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=20178735$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280173$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Messmer, Peter, PD MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kikinis, Ron, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthews, Felix, MD</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery</title><title>Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery</title><addtitle>J Craniomaxillofac Surg</addtitle><description>Summary Background Surgical navigation requires registration of the pre-operative image dataset with the patient in the operation theatre. Various marker and marker-free registration techniques are available, each bearing an individual level of precision and clinical practicability. In this study the precision of four different registration methods in a maxillofacial surgical setting is analyzed. Materials and methods A synthetic full size human skull model was registered with its computer tomography-dataset using (a) a dentally mounted occlusal splint, (b) the laser surface scanning, (c) five facial bone implants and (d) a combination of dental splint and two orbital bone implants. The target registration error was computed for 170 landmarks spread over the entire viscero- and neurocranium in 10 repeats using the VectorVision2® (BrainLAB AG, Heimstetten, Germany) navigation system. Statistical and graphical analyses were performed by anatomical region. Results An average precision of 1 mm was found for the periorbital region irrespective of registration method (range 0.6–1.1 mm). Beyond the mid-face, precision linearly decreases with the distance from the reference markers. The combination of splint with two orbital bone markers significantly improved precision from 1.3 to 0.8 mm ( p &lt; 0.001) on the viscerocranium and 2.3–1.2 mm ( p &lt; 0.001) on the neurocranium. Conclusions An occlusal splint alone yields poor precision for navigation beyond the mid-face. The precision can be increased by combining an occlusal splint with just two bone implants inserted percutaneously on the lateral orbital rim of each side.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bone Screws</subject><subject>comparative study</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Facial Bones - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Models, Anatomic</subject><subject>Occlusal Splints</subject><subject>Orbit</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Patient Care Planning</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgery, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>surgery, maxillofacial</subject><subject>tomography, X-ray</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>1010-5182</issn><issn>1878-4119</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk2r1DAUhoMo3uvVP-BCutFd60k6aVIQ4TL4BRdcqOuQJidjapuMSXtx_r0pMyi4cJOEnOc9hCeHkOcUGgq0ez02o5lzwwBEA30DwB6QayqFrHeU9g_LGSjUnEp2RZ7kPAJAB7J_TK7KlQQq2mti93E-6uRzDFV0lfXOYcKwVAkPPi9JL75UZly-R5srF1OV13TwRk9V0Pf-cK77UJmkg4_1rH_5aYpOG1-QjcV0ekoeOT1lfHbZb8i39---7j_Wd58_fNrf3tWG7_qlFsiQlkXSvkXL9LBrrdWmF9LhjgsEISkbnBjAag0dguNyaHvJne46Vugb8urc95jizxXzomafDU6TDhjXrAS0nHYUCsjOoEkx54ROHZOfdTopCmpzq0a1uVWbWwW9Km5L6MWl-zrMaP9GLjIL8PIC6FwEuWLE-PyHYwWSouWFe3PmsLi495hUNh6DQesTmkXZ6P__jrf_xM3kw_YlP_CEeYxrCsWyoiozBerLNgXbEIAAoJyz9jchra7A</recordid><startdate>20080301</startdate><enddate>20080301</enddate><creator>Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD</creator><creator>Messmer, Peter, PD MD</creator><creator>Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD</creator><creator>Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD</creator><creator>Kikinis, Ron, MD</creator><creator>Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD</creator><creator>Matthews, Felix, MD</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080301</creationdate><title>Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery</title><author>Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD ; Messmer, Peter, PD MD ; Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD ; Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD ; Kikinis, Ron, MD ; Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD ; Matthews, Felix, MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-7e2e17e28193ed2ab43ddac978fe457e07812bf7b0daa06e0f58b3985fa662b43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bone Screws</topic><topic>comparative study</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Facial Bones - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Models, Anatomic</topic><topic>Occlusal Splints</topic><topic>Orbit</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Patient Care Planning</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgery, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>surgery, maxillofacial</topic><topic>tomography, X-ray</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Messmer, Peter, PD MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kikinis, Ron, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthews, Felix, MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Luebbers, Heinz-Theo, MD, DMD</au><au>Messmer, Peter, PD MD</au><au>Obwegeser, Joachim Anton, PD MD, DMD</au><au>Zwahlen, Roger Arthur, MD, DMD</au><au>Kikinis, Ron, MD</au><au>Graetz, Klaus Wilhelm, MD, DMD</au><au>Matthews, Felix, MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Craniomaxillofac Surg</addtitle><date>2008-03-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>109</spage><epage>116</epage><pages>109-116</pages><issn>1010-5182</issn><eissn>1878-4119</eissn><coden>JCMSET</coden><abstract>Summary Background Surgical navigation requires registration of the pre-operative image dataset with the patient in the operation theatre. Various marker and marker-free registration techniques are available, each bearing an individual level of precision and clinical practicability. In this study the precision of four different registration methods in a maxillofacial surgical setting is analyzed. Materials and methods A synthetic full size human skull model was registered with its computer tomography-dataset using (a) a dentally mounted occlusal splint, (b) the laser surface scanning, (c) five facial bone implants and (d) a combination of dental splint and two orbital bone implants. The target registration error was computed for 170 landmarks spread over the entire viscero- and neurocranium in 10 repeats using the VectorVision2® (BrainLAB AG, Heimstetten, Germany) navigation system. Statistical and graphical analyses were performed by anatomical region. Results An average precision of 1 mm was found for the periorbital region irrespective of registration method (range 0.6–1.1 mm). Beyond the mid-face, precision linearly decreases with the distance from the reference markers. The combination of splint with two orbital bone markers significantly improved precision from 1.3 to 0.8 mm ( p &lt; 0.001) on the viscerocranium and 2.3–1.2 mm ( p &lt; 0.001) on the neurocranium. Conclusions An occlusal splint alone yields poor precision for navigation beyond the mid-face. The precision can be increased by combining an occlusal splint with just two bone implants inserted percutaneously on the lateral orbital rim of each side.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>18280173</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jcms.2007.09.002</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1010-5182
ispartof Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery, 2008-03, Vol.36 (2), p.109-116
issn 1010-5182
1878-4119
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70351610
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Bone Screws
comparative study
Contrast Media
Dentistry
Facial Bones - surgery
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods
Lasers
Medical sciences
Models, Anatomic
Occlusal Splints
Orbit
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Patient Care Planning
Phantoms, Imaging
Surgery
Surgery, Computer-Assisted
surgery, maxillofacial
tomography, X-ray
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
title Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T09%3A37%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20different%20registration%20methods%20for%20surgical%20navigation%20in%20cranio-maxillofacial%20surgery&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cranio-maxillo-facial%20surgery&rft.au=Luebbers,%20Heinz-Theo,%20MD,%20DMD&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=109&rft.epage=116&rft.pages=109-116&rft.issn=1010-5182&rft.eissn=1878-4119&rft.coden=JCMSET&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jcms.2007.09.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70351610%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70351610&rft_id=info:pmid/18280173&rft_els_id=S1010518207001552&rfr_iscdi=true