Registration-free workflow for electromagnetic and optical navigation in orbital and craniofacial surgery

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 11; no. 1; p. 18080
• Main Authors: Schreurs, R., Baan, F., Klop, C., Dubois, L., Beenen, L. F. M., Habets, P. E. M. H., Becking, A. G., Maal, T. J. J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 10-09-2021; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 639/166/985; 692/700; Accuracy; Cadaver; Dentition; Head - diagnostic imaging; Head - surgery; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Maxilla; multidisciplinary; Ophthalmologic Surgical Procedures - methods; Patients; Radiation; Registration; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Surgery; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods; Teeth; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Tracking techniques; Workflow
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-97706-5

The accuracy of intra-operative navigation is largely dependent on the intra-operative registration procedure. Next to accuracy, important factors to consider for the registration procedure are invasiveness, time consumption, logistical demands, user-dependency, compatibility and radiation exposure. In this study, a workflow is presented that eliminates the need for a registration procedure altogether: registration-free navigation. In the workflow, the maxillary dental model is fused to the pre-operative imaging data using commercially available virtual planning software. A virtual Dynamic Reference Frame on a splint is designed on the patient’s fused maxillary dentition: during surgery, the splint containing the reference frame is positioned on the patient’s dentition. This alleviates the need for any registration procedure, since the position of the reference frame is known from the design. The accuracy of the workflow was evaluated in a cadaver set-up, and compared to bone-anchored fiducial, virtual splint and surface-based registration. The results showed that accuracy of the workflow was greatly dependent on tracking technique used: the workflow was the most accurate with electromagnetic tracking, but the least accurate with optical tracking. Although this method offers a time-efficient, non-invasive, radiation-free automatic alternative for registration, clinical implementation is hampered by the unexplained differences in accuracy between tracking techniques.