Comparison of 4 Registration Strategies for Computer‐Aided Maxillofacial Surgery

Metzger, Marc Christian; Rafii, Amir; Holhweg-Majert, Bettina; Pham, Annette M.; Strong, E. Bradley

doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.015

Cited by 80 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the previous studies, anatomical landmark registration was performed based on the following anatomical points: glabellum, bilateral lateral canthi, bilateramedial canthi, and nasal tip, which were difficult to select both virtually on the CBCT image and clinically during the registration procedure (Hardy et al, 2006;Metzger et al, 2007). In contrast, in our study, three anatomical points located on the occlusal level were all clearly definable, which helped improve the registration accuracy of anatomical landmarks based method.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…In his study, the registration accuracy is below 2 mm which can not satisfy the requirements of bimaxillary surgery. Other studies demonstrate that the accuracy of anatomical landmark registration is even worse than 3 mm (Hardy et al, 2006;Metzger et al, 2007;Lubbers et al, 2011b). The main error source is that there are fewer definable bony landmarks on the cranium and lateral skull to be selected as registration point.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of anatomical landmarks-based registration for image-guided surgery: An in-vitro study

Sun

Luebbers

Agbaje

et al. 2013

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION:Perioperative navigation is a recent addition to orthognathic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of anatomical landmarks-based registration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-five holes (1.2 mm diameter) were drilled in the surface of a plastic skull model, which was then scanned using a SkyView cone beam computed tomography scanner. DICOM files were imported into BrainLab ENT 3.0.0 to make a surgical plan. Six anatomical points were selected for registration: the infraorbital foramena, the anterior nasal spine, the crown tips of the upper canines, and the mesial contact point of the upper incisors. Each registration was performed five times by two separate observers (10 times total). RESULTS: The mean target registration error (TRE) in the anterior maxillary/zygomatic region was 0.93 ± 0.31 mm (p < 0.001 compared with other anatomical regions). The only statistically significant inter-observer difference of mean TRE was at the zygomatic arch, but was not clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: With six anatomical landmarks used, the mean TRE was clinically acceptable in the maxillary/zygomatic region. This registration technique may be used to access occlusal changes during bimaxillary surgery, but should be used with caution in other anatomical regions of the skull because of the large TRE observed. Perioperative navigation is a recent addition to orthognathic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of anatomical landmark-based registration. Materials and methods: Eighty-five holes (1.2 mm diameter) were drilled in the surface of a plastic skull model, which was then scanned using a SkyView cone beam computed tomography scanner. DICOM files were imported into BrainLab ENT 3.0.0 to make a surgical plan. Six anatomical points were selected for registration: the infraorbital foramena, the anterior nasal spine, the crown tips of the upper canines, and the mesial contact point of the upper incisors. Each registration was performed five times by two separate observers (10 times total). Results: The mean target registration error (TRE) in the anterior maxillary/zygomatic region was 0.93 ± 0.31 mm (p < 0.001 compared with other anatomical regions). The only statistically significant interobserver difference of mean TRE was at the zygomatic arch, but was not clinically relevant. Conclusion: With six anatomical landmarks used, the mean TRE was clinically acceptable in the maxillary/zygomatic region. This registration technique may be used to access occlusal changes during bimaxillary surgery, but should be used with caution in other anatomical regions of the skull because of the large TRE observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of anatomical landmarks-based registration for image-guided surgery: An in-vitro study

Sun

Luebbers

Agbaje

et al. 2013

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This device fixes the position of the patient's head in relation to the operating table (Figure 8). Infrared LEDs or reflectors are attached to the head clamp for registration, making it possible to detect all (30) found that invasive registration is more accurate than non-invasive registration.…”

Section: Registration Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer‐assisted therapy in orbital and mid‐facial reconstructions

Schramm¹,

Suárez‐Cunqueiro

Rücker

et al. 2009

Robotics Computer Surgery

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Management of orbital and mid-facial fractures requires a thorough ophthalmic evaluation and precise imaging. A principle goal of therapy is to anatomically reduce fracture segments and to restore a normal orbital volume as soon as possible. Diagnostic advances such as new surgical and imaging techniques have dramatically improved both the functional and aesthetic outcome of reconstructions.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have evaluated general precision (Schlaier et al, 2002;Hoffmann et al, 2005b;Metzger et al, 2007) and concentrated on navigation precision in the maxillary and periorbital region (Marmulla et al, 2004b;Marmulla et al, 2004a;Hardy et al, 2006) or precision in the cranium (Luebbers et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Point-to-point registration with mandibulo-maxillary splint in open and closed jaw position. Evaluation of registration accuracy for computer-aided surgery of the mandible

Bettschart

Kruse

Matthews

et al. 2012

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION:Computer navigation plays an increasingly important role in craniomaxillofacial surgery. The difficulties in computer navigation at the craniomaxillofacial site lie in the accurate transmission of the dataset to the operating room. This study investigates the accuracy of the dental-splint registration method for the skull, midface, and mandible. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A synthetic human skull model was prepared with landmarks and scanned with cone beam computer tomography (CBCT). Two registration splints fixed the mandible against the viscerocranium in two different positions (closed vs. open). The target registration error was computed in all 278 landmarks spread over the entire skull and mandible in 10 repeated measurements using the VectorVision(2) (Brain-LAB Inc., Feldkirchen, Germany) navigation system. RESULTS: If registered in the closed position an average precision of 2.07mm with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.78mm was computed for all landmarks distributed over the whole skull. Registration in the open position resulted in an average precision of 1.53mm (SD=0.55mm). For single landmarks the precision decreases linearly with distance from the reference markers. The longer the three-dimensional distance between the registration points, the more precise the computer navigation is, mainly in the most posterior area of the cranium. CONCLUSION: Our findings in the cranium are comparable with those of other studies. Artificial fixation of the lower jaw via splint seems to introduce no additional error. The registration points should be as far apart from each other as possible during navigation with the splint.

show abstract

Comparison of 4 Registration Strategies for Computer‐Aided Maxillofacial Surgery

Abstract: Of the techniques tested for CAS registration, invasive fiducial markers are the most accurate. Skin surface landmarks, bony landmarks, and an intraoral splint are incrementally less accurate.

Cited by 80 publications

References 20 publications

Validation of anatomical landmarks-based registration for image-guided surgery: An in-vitro study

Validation of anatomical landmarks-based registration for image-guided surgery: An in-vitro study

Computer‐assisted therapy in orbital and mid‐facial reconstructions

Point-to-point registration with mandibulo-maxillary splint in open and closed jaw position. Evaluation of registration accuracy for computer-aided surgery of the mandible

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About