PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Arquivos Brasileiros de Neurocirurgia: Brazilian Neurosurgery 2024; 43(04): e325-e336
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1795095
Review Article

Precision in Neuronavigation Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Precisão em sistemas de neuronavegação: Uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise
Evelen Rouse de Souza Santos
1   Department of Medicine, Tiradentes University, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
,
Fabiana Ramos Viana
1   Department of Medicine, Tiradentes University, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
,
Paulo Eduardo Gonçalves
2   Department of Medicine, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
,
Maria Adriely Cunha Lima
1   Department of Medicine, Tiradentes University, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
,
Carlos Alberto Miranda Lyra
1   Department of Medicine, Tiradentes University, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
,
Bruno Fernandes de Oliveira Santos 
1   Department of Medicine, Tiradentes University, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
2   Department of Medicine, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
3   Health Sciences Graduate Program, Federal University of Sergipe, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
› Institutsangaben Funding There is no funding source for this article.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Introduction To evaluate the accuracy of different neuronavigation systems and establish factors that influence their accuracy and their indications for use.

Methods This is a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis based on the guiding question of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA): What is the accuracy of neuronavigation systems and the factors that influence it? For that, a search was performed in PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, Embase, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases using descriptors combined with two Boolean operators. The articles found were submitted to eligibility criteria, and the reading was partial and complete. A total of 51 studies were selected, and 11 were included in the meta-analysis.

Results In total, 5,316 procedures were evaluated using neuronavigation systems and different types of procedures performed on the skull and spine. After meta-analysis, it was possible to establish the accuracy of the optical (N = 297) and AR (N = 195), with SBT of 2.34 mm and 2.09 mm, respectively. However, studies were evaluated regarding the influence of different recording methods, the use of associated technologies, and their indications for use.

Conclusions The accuracy of the systems was established through the TRE of 2.34 mm for the optical and 2.09 mm for the augmented reality, while it was not possible to establish the electromagnetic one. Thus, the ARN is the system with the best accuracy value, in addition to presenting advantages during the surgical period when compared with the others.

Resumo

Introdução Avaliar a precisão de diferentes sistemas de neuronavegação e estabelecer fatores que influenciam sua precisão e suas indicações de uso.

Métodos Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática da literatura com meta-análise baseada na questão norteadora do Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA): Qual a precisão dos sistemas de neuronavegação e os fatores que a influenciam? Para tanto foi realizada uma busca nas bases de dados PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, Embase, Web of Science e SCOPUS utilizando descritores combinados com dois operadores booleanos. Os artigos encontrados foram submetidos aos critérios de elegibilidade e a leitura foi parcial e completa. Foram selecionados 51 estudos e 11 foram incluídos na meta-análise.

Resultados No total foram avaliados 5.316 procedimentos utilizando sistemas de neuronavegação e diferentes tipos de procedimentos realizados no crânio e na coluna vertebral. Após a meta-análise foi possível estabelecer a precisão da óptica (N = 297) e da RA (N = 195) com SBT de 2 34 mm e 2.09 mm, respectivamente. No entanto foram avaliados estudos quanto à influência de diferentes métodos de registro ao uso de tecnologias associadas e suas indicações de uso.

Conclusões A precisão dos sistemas foi estabelecida por meio do TRE de 2.34 mm para a óptica e 2.09 mm para a realidade aumentada enquanto não foi possível estabelecer o eletromagnético. Dessa forma a ARN é o sistema com melhor valor de precisão além de apresentar vantagens durante o período cirúrgico quando comparado aos demais.

Keywords

neuronavigation - accuracy - reliability - neurosurgery - neurosurgical procedures - image-guided surgery

Palavras-chave

neuronavegação - precisão - confiabilidade - neurocirurgia - procedimentos neurocirúrgicos - cirurgia guiada por imagem


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 13. Dezember 2023

Angenommen: 18. Oktober 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
11. Dezember 2024

© 2024. Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Figueras-Benitez G, Urbano L, Acero A, Huerta M, Castro M. Surgical Navigation Systems: A Technological Overview . 2014 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2449.1043
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Clarke M, Horton R. Bringing it all together: Lancet-Cochrane collaborate on systematic reviews. Lancet 2001; 357 (9270) 1728
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Office Excel. Microsoft, 2018
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D. et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital,; 2021
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid-Based Healthc 2015; 13 (03) 147-153
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME. et al; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (08) 529-536
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Asano K, Katayama K, Kakuta K, Oyama K, Ohkuma H. Assessment of the Accuracy and Errors of Head-Up Display by an Optical Neuronavigation System in Brain Tumor Surgery. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2017; 13 (01) 23-35
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Auloge P, Cazzato RL, Ramamurthy N. et al. Augmented reality and artificial intelligence-based navigation during percutaneous vertebroplasty: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Eur Spine J 2020; 29 (07) 1580-1589
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bilhar RPO, de Lima DA, Leite JAD, Porto MA. Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion: A comparison between fluoroscopic guidance and navigation techniques. Acta Ortop Bras 2018; 26 (06) 397-400
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Carl B, Bopp M, Saß B. et al. Reliable navigation registration in cranial and spine surgery based on intraoperative computed tomography. Neurosurg Focus 2019; 47 (06) E11
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Caversaccio M, Langlotz F, Nolte LP, Häusler R. Impact of a self-developed planning and self-constructed navigation system on skull base surgery: 10 years experience. Acta Otolaryngol 2007; 127 (04) 403-407
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Carvi Y Nievas MN, Höllerhage HG. Reliability of neuronavigation-assisted trans-sphenoidal tumor resections. Neurol Res 2007; 29 (06) 557-562 Doi: 10.1179/016164107 × 164184
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Castilla JM, Martín V, Fernández-Arconada O, Delgado P, Rodríguez-Salazar A. [First steps in neuronavigation]. Neurocirugia (Astur) 2003; 14 (05) 398-408
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Condino S, Montemurro N, Cattari N. et al. Evaluation of a Wearable AR Platform for Guiding Complex Craniotomies in Neurosurgery. Ann Biomed Eng 2021; 49 (09) 2590-2605
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Deng W, Li F, Wang M, Song Z. Easy-to-use augmented reality neuronavigation using a wireless tablet PC. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2014; 92 (01) 17-24
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, Vescan AD, Witterick IJ, Irish JC. Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: the effect of augmented reality on attention. Surg Endosc 2013; 27 (02) 454-461
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Eboli P, Shafa B, Mayberg M. Intraoperative computed tomography registration and electromagnetic neuronavigation for transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: accuracy and time effectiveness. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (02) 329-335
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Elmi-Terander A, Nachabe R, Skulason H. et al. Feasibility and Accuracy of Thoracolumbar Minimally Invasive Pedicle Screw Placement With Augmented Reality Navigation Technology. Spine 2018; 43 (14) 1018-1023
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Elmi-Terander A, Burström G, Nachabe R. et al. Pedicle Screw Placement Using Augmented Reality Surgical Navigation With Intraoperative 3D Imaging: A First In-Human Prospective Cohort Study. Spine 2019; 44 (07) 517-525
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Enchev Y, Tzekov C, Ferdinandov D, Cekov A, Spiriev T. Neuronavigation in cranioorbital neurosurgery - do we really need it?. Turk Neurosurg 2011; 21 (02) 119-126
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Fan Y, Yao X, Xu X. A robust automated surface-matching registration method for neuronavigation. Med Phys 2020; 47 (07) 2755-2767
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Finger T, Schaumann A, Schulz M, Thomale UW. Augmented reality in intraventricular neuroendoscopy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2017; 159 (06) 1033-1041
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Grayeli AB, Esquia-Medina G, Nguyen Y. et al. Use of anatomic or invasive markers in association with skin surface registration in image-guided surgery of the temporal bone. Acta Otolaryngol 2009; 129 (04) 405-410
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gerard IJ, Kersten-Oertel M, Drouin S. et al. Combining intraoperative ultrasound brain shift correction and augmented reality visualizations: a pilot study of eight cases. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2018; 5 (02) 021210
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Guedes VP, Manffra EF, Aguiar LR. Image-guided surgery in the spine: Neuronavigation vs. fluoroscopy. Coluna/Columna 2015; 14 (03) 181-185
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Hejazi N. Frameless image-guided neuronavigation in orbital surgery: practical applications. Neurosurg Rev 2006; 29 (02) 118-122
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Hermann EJ, Petrakakis I, Polemikos M. et al. Electromagnetic navigation-guided surgery in the semi-sitting position for posterior fossa tumours: a safety and feasibility study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015; 157 (07) 1229-1237
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Hermann EJ, Esmaeilzadeh M, Ertl P, Polemikos M, Raab P, Krauss JK. Endoscopic intracranial surgery enhanced by electromagnetic-guided neuronavigation in children. Childs Nerv Syst 2015; 31 (08) 1327-1333
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Inoue D, Cho B, Mori M. et al. Preliminary study on the clinical application of augmented reality neuronavigation. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2013; 74 (02) 71-76
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Jung TY, Jung S, Kim IY. et al. Application of neuronavigation system to brain tumor surgery with clinical experience of 420 cases. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2006; 49 (04) 210-215
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Mascitelli JR, Schlachter L, Chartrain AG. et al. Navigation-Linked Heads-Up Display in Intracranial Surgery: Early Experience. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2018; 15 (02) 184-193
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Mascott CR, Sol JC, Bousquet P, Lagarrigue J, Lazorthes Y, Lauwers-Cances V. Quantification of true in vivo (application) accuracy in cranial image-guided surgery: influence of mode of patient registration. Neurosurgery 2006; 59 (1, Suppl 1) ONS146-ONS156 , discussion ONS146–ONS156
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Maruyama K, Watanabe E, Kin T. et al. Smart Glasses for Neurosurgical Navigation by Augmented Reality. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2018; 15 (05) 551-556
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 McLaughlin N, Carrau RL, Kassam AB, Kelly DF. Neuronavigation in endonasal pituitary and skull base surgery using an autoregistration mask without head fixation: an assessment of accuracy and practicality. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2012; 73 (06) 351-357
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Mert A, Gan LS, Knosp E, Sutherland GR, Wolfsberger S. Advanced cranial navigation. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (Suppl. 01) 43-53
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Muacevic A, Uhl E, Steiger HJ, Reulen HJ. Accuracy and clinical applicability of a passive marker based frameless neuronavigation system. J Clin Neurosci 2000; 7 (05) 414-418
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Nimsky C, Grummich P, Sorensen AG, Fahlbusch R, Ganslandt O. Visualization of the pyramidal tract in glioma surgery by integrating diffusion tensor imaging in functional neuronavigation. Zentralbl Neurochir 2005; 66 (03) 133-141
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Novák V, Hrabálek L, Valošek J. et al. The use of an O-arm in endonasal endoscopic operations of the skull base. BMC Surg 2021; 21 (01) 58
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Paraskevopoulos D, Unterberg A, Metzner R, Dreyhaupt J, Eggers G, Wirtz CR. Comparative study of application accuracy of two frameless neuronavigation systems: experimental error assessment quantifying registration methods and clinically influencing factors. Neurosurg Rev 2010; 34 (02) 217-228
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Pinggera D, Kerschbaumer J, Bauer M. et al. Accuracy Validation of Neuronavigation Comparing Headholder-Based System with Head-Mounted Array-A Cadaveric Study. World Neurosurg 2018; 120: e313-e317
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Pojskić M, Bopp MHA, Saβ B, Carl B, Nimsky C. Microscope-Based Augmented Reality with Intraoperative Computed Tomography-Based Navigation for Resection of Skull Base Meningiomas in Consecutive Series of 39 Patients. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14 (09) 2302
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Pojskić M, Bopp M, Saß B, Kirschbaum A, Nimsky C, Carl B. Intraoperative Computed Tomography-Based Navigation with Augmented Reality for Lateral Approaches to the Spine. Brain Sci 2021; 11 (05) 646
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Raabe A, Krishnan R, Wolff R, Hermann E, Zimmermann M, Seifert V. Laser surface scanning for patient registration in intracranial image-guided surgery. Neurosurgery 2002; 50 (04) 797-801 , discussion 802–803
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Reinges MH, Nguyen HH, Krings T, Hütter BO, Rohde V, Gilsbach JM. Course of brain shift during microsurgical resection of supratentorial cerebral lesions: limits of conventional neuronavigation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2004; 146 (04) 369-377 , discussion 377
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Roethe AL, Rösler J, Misch M, Vajkoczy P, Picht T. Augmented reality visualization in brain lesions: a prospective randomized controlled evaluation of its potential and current limitations in navigated microneurosurgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2022; 164 (01) 3-14
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Salma A, Makiese O, Sammet S, Ammirati M. Effect of registration mode on neuronavigation precision: an exploration of the role of random error. Comput Aided Surg 2012; 17 (04) 172-178
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 49 Scheufler KM, Franke J, Eckardt A, Dohmen H. Accuracy of image-guided pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation with automated referencing, part I: cervicothoracic spine. Neurosurgery 2011; 69 (04) 782-795 , discussion 795
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 50 Serej ND, Ahmadian A, Mohagheghi S, Sadrehosseini SM. A projected landmark method for reduction of registration error in image-guided surgery systems. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2015; 10 (05) 541-554
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Shamir RR, Joskowicz L, Spektor S, Shoshan Y. Target and trajectory clinical application accuracy in neuronavigation. Neurosurgery 2011; 68 (01) , Suppl Operative ) 95-101 , discussion 101–102
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 52 Suess O, Kombos T, Kurth R. et al. Intracranial image-guided neurosurgery: experience with a new electromagnetic navigation system. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2001; 143 (09) 927-934
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 53 Suess O, Picht T, Kuehn B, Mularski S, Brock M, Kombos T. Neuronavigation without rigid pin fixation of the head in left frontotemporal tumor surgery with intraoperative speech mapping. Neurosurgery 2007; 60 (4, Suppl 2) 330-338 , discussion 338
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 54 Besharati Tabrizi L, Mahvash M. Augmented reality-guided neurosurgery: accuracy and intraoperative application of an image projection technique. J Neurosurg 2015; 123 (01) 206-211
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 55 van Doormaal TPC, van Doormaal JAM, Mensink T. Clinical Accuracy of Holographic Navigation Using Point-Based Registration on Augmented-Reality Glasses. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019; 17 (06) 588-593
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 56 Yavas G, Caliskan KE, Cagli MS. Three-dimensional-printed marker-based augmented reality neuronavigation: a new neuronavigation technique. Neurosurg Focus 2021; 51 (02) E20
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 57 Yoshino M, Saito T, Kin T. et al. A Microscopic Optically Tracking Navigation System That Uses High-resolution 3D Computer Graphics. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2015; 55 (08) 674-679 https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.tn.2014-0278
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 58 Zhao Y, Yu S, Wang R, Zhao J. Clinical application of a neuronavigation system in transsphenoidal surgery of pituitary macroadenoma. Neurosurg Rev 2006; 29 (04) 306-311 , discussion 311–312
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 59 Zhuang DX, Liu YX, Wu JS. et al. A sparse intraoperative data-driven biomechanical model to compensate for brain shift during neuronavigation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32 (02) 395-402
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 60 Wang M, Song Z. How does adding anatomical landmarks as fiducial points in the point-matching registration of neuronavigation influence registration accuracy?. Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon) 2016; 21 (01) 39-45
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 61 Wang MN, Song ZJ. Classification and analysis of the errors in neuronavigation. Neurosurgery 2011; 68 (04) 1131-1143 , discussion 1143
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 62 FITZPATRICK. J. M.; WEST, J. B. The distribution of target registration error in rigid-body point-based registration. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, [s. l.], v. 20, n. 9, p. 917–927, 2001. Disponível em: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11585208/ . Acesso at: 4 Jun. 2022
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 63 Grauvogel TD, Engelskirchen P, Semper-Hogg W, Grauvogel J, Laszig R. Navigation accuracy after automatic- and hybrid-surface registration in sinus and skull base surgery. PLoS One 2017; 12 (07) e0180975
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 64 Kuehn B, Mularski S, Schoenherr S. et al. Sensor-based neuronavigation: evaluation of a large continuous patient population. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2008; 110 (10) 1012-1019
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 65 Pfisterer WK, Papadopoulos S, Drumm DA, Smith K, Preul MC. Fiducial versus nonfiducial neuronavigation registration assessment and considerations of accuracy. Neurosurgery 2008; 62 (3, Suppl 1) 201-207 , discussion 207–208
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 66 Meola A, Cutolo F, Carbone M, Cagnazzo F, Ferrari M, Ferrari V. Augmented reality in neurosurgery: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev 2017; 40 (04) 537-548
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 67 Qi Z, Li Y, Xu X. et al. Holographic mixed-reality neuronavigation with a head-mounted device: technical feasibility and clinical application. Neurosurg Focus 2021; 51 (02) E22
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 68 Pereira ELR, Rodrigues BE, Gomes DL, Lima LO, Viegas LCM. Neuronavegação em neurocirurgia / Neuronavigation in neurosurgery. Braz Neurosurg 2014; 33 (04) 340-346
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 69 Drouin S, Kochanowska A, Kersten-Oertel M. et al. IBIS: an OR ready open-source platform for image-guided neurosurgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2017; 12 (03) 363-378
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar