A Comparison of Accuracy of Image- versus Hardware-based Tracking Technologies in 3D Fusion in Aortic Endografting

Fusion of three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography and intraoperative two-dimensional imaging in endovascular surgery relies on manual rigid co-registration of bony landmarks and tracking of hardware to provide a 3D overlay (hardware-based tracking, HWT). An alternative technique (image-based tracking, IMT) uses image recognition to register and place the fusion mask. We present preliminary experience with an agnostic fusion technology that uses IMT, with the aim of comparing the accuracy of overlay for this technology with HWT.

Data were collected prospectively for 12 patients. All devices were deployed using both IMT and HWT fusion assistance concurrently. Postoperative analysis of both systems was performed by three blinded expert observers, from selected time-points during the procedures, using the displacement of fusion rings, the overlay of vascular markings and the true ostia of renal arteries. The Mean overlay error and the deviation from mean error was derived using image analysis software. Comparison of the mean overlay error was made between IMT and HWT. The validity of the point-picking technique was assessed.

IMT was successful in all of the first 12 cases, whereas technical learning curve challenges thwarted HWT in four cases. When independent operators assessed the degree of accuracy of the overlay, the median error for IMT was 3.9 mm (IQR 2.89-6.24, max 9.5) versus 8.64 mm (IQR 6.1-16.8, max 24.5) for HWT (p = .001). Variance per observer was 0.69 mm(2) and 95% limit of agreement ±1.63.

In this preliminary study, the error of magnitude of displacement from the "true anatomy" during image overlay in IMT was less than for HWT. This confirms that ongoing manual re-registration, as recommended by the manufacturer, should be performed for HWT systems to maintain accuracy. The error in position of the fusion markers for IMT was consistent, thus may be considered predictable.