Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026
Remote Magnetic Navigation for Accurate, Real-time Catheter Positioning and Ablation in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures
Published on: April 21, 2013
Smart goggles augmented reality CT-US fusion compared to conventional fusion navigation for percutaneous needle
Tabea Borde1, Laetitia Saccenti2,3, Ming Li2
1Center for Interventional Oncology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Room 3N320, MSC 1182, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. tabea.borde@nih.gov.
Purpose:
Targeting accuracy determines outcomes for percutaneous needle interventions. Augmented reality (AR) in IR may improve procedural guidance and facilitate access to complex locations. This study aimed to evaluate percutaneous needle placement accuracy using a goggle-based AR system compared to an ultrasound (US)-based fusion navigation system.
Methods:
Six interventional radiologists performed 24 independent needle placements in an anthropomorphic phantom (CIRS 057A) in four needle guidance cohorts (n = 6 each): (1) US-based fusion, (2) goggle-based AR with stereoscopically projected anatomy (AR-overlay), (3) goggle AR without the projection (AR-plain), and (4) CT-guided freehand. US-based fusion included US/CT registration with electromagnetic (EM) needle, transducer, and patient tracking. For AR-overlay, US, EM-tracked needle, stereoscopic anatomical structures and targets were superimposed over the phantom. Needle placement accuracy (distance from needle tip to target center), placement time (from skin puncture to final position), and procedure time (time to completion) were measured.
Results:
Mean needle placement accuracy using US-based fusion, AR-overlay, AR-plain, and freehand was 4.5 ± 1.7 mm, 7.0 ± 4.7 mm, 4.7 ± 1.7 mm, and 9.2 ± 5.8 mm, respectively. AR-plain demonstrated comparable accuracy to US-based fusion (p = 0.7) and AR-overlay (p = 0.06). Excluding two outliers, AR-overlay accuracy became 5.9 ± 2.6 mm. US-based fusion had the highest mean placement time (44.3 ± 27.7 s) compared to all navigation cohorts (p < 0.001). Longest procedure times were recorded with AR-overlay (34 ± 10.2 min) compared to AR-plain (22.7 ± 8.6 min, p = 0.09), US-based fusion (19.5 ± 5.6 min, p = 0.02), and freehand (14.8 ± 1.6 min, p = 0.002).
Conclusion:
Goggle-based AR showed no difference in needle placement accuracy compared to the commercially available US-based fusion navigation platform. Differences in accuracy and procedure times were apparent with different display modes (with/without stereoscopic projections). The AR-based projection of the US and needle trajectory over the body may be a helpful tool to enhance visuospatial orientation. Thus, this study refines the potential role of AR for needle placements, which may serve as a catalyst for informed implementation of AR techniques in IR.
