Computer Aided Surgery · 2000 · 154 citations · 17 references
ComputingMechatronics EngineeringComputer VisionDigital ImagingMachine VisionIntraoperative NavigationMotion AnalysisOptical MetrologyTracking SystemsVisual TrackingJitterJitter MeasurementNavigation System TestingOptical TrackingOptical Tracking SystemsSurgical Imaging GuidanceSurgical Navigation SystemsTracking Error Analysis
The study examines how the placement of the dynamic reference frame relative to the tracking camera influences the precision of an optical tracking system by measuring jitter. A linear test rig with a software interface was used to collect jitter data across five camera–DRF configurations, measuring jitter within a single quadrant of the camera’s viewing volume. FlashPoint systems achieved RMS jitter of 0.028 mm (300 mm), 0.051 mm (580 mm), and 0.059 mm (1 m), while Polaris recorded 0.058 mm with an active DRF and 0.115 mm with a passive DRF; both systems maintained jitter below 0.11 mm, though error distributions differed and were dominated by the axis opposite the camera.
Objective: Effective utilization of an optical tracking system for image-based surgical guidance requires optimal placement of the dynamic reference frame (DRF) with respect to the tracking camera. Unlike other studies that measure the overall accuracy of a particular navigation system, this study investigates the precision of one component of the navigation system: the optical tracking system (OTS). The precision of OTS measurements is quantified asjitter. By measuring jitter, one can better understand how system inaccuracies depend on the position of the DRF with respect to the camera.Materials and Methods: Both FlashPoint™ (Image Guided Technologies, Inc., Boulder, Colorado) and Polaris™ (Northern Digital Inc., Ontario, Canada) optical tracking systems were tested in five different camera and DRF configurations. A linear testing apparatus with a software interface was designed to facilitate data collection. Jitter measurements were collected over a single quadrant within the camera viewing volume, as symmetry was assumed about the horizontal and vertical axes.Results: Excluding the highest 5% of jitter, the FlashPoint cameras had an RMS jitter range of 0.028 ± 0.012 mm for the 300 mm model, 0.051 ± 0.038 mm for the 580 mm model, and 0.059 ± 0.047 mm for the 1 m model. The Polaris camera had an RMS jitter range of 0.058 ± 0.037 mm with an active DRF and 0.115 ± 0.075 mm with a passive DRF. Conclusion: Both FlashPoint and Polaris have jitter less than 0.11 mm, although the error distributions differ significantly. Total jitter for all systems is dominated by the component measured in the axis directed away from the camera.
17
Computer Assisted Knee Replacement
Scott L. Delp, David Stulberg, Brian Davies et al. · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 1998 · 346 citations
A frameless, armless navigational system for computer-assisted neurosurgery
Amami Kato, Toshiki Yoshimine, Tõru Hayakawa et al. · Journal of neurosurgery · 1991 · 292 citations
Application of a magnetic tracking device to kinesiologic studies
K.N. An, Megan C. Jacobsen, Lars Berglund et al. · Journal of Biomechanics · 1988 · 253 citations