Comparison of 4 registration strategies for computer-aided maxillofacial surgery

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

59 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Surgeons have recently started to use computer-aided surgery (CAS) to assist with maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. This study evaluates four different CAS registration strategies in the maxillofacial skeleton. Materials and Methods: Fifteen fiducial markers were placed on each of four cadaveric heads. Four registration protocols were used: 1) group 1-invasive markers, 2) group 2-skin surface, 3) group 3-bony landmark, 4) group 4-intraoral splint. Two observers registered each head twice with each of the four protocols and measured the target registration error (TRE). The process was repeated on two different navigation systems for confirmation. Results: The mean TRE values were: invasive, 1.13 ± 0.05 mm (P < 0.05); skin, 2.03 ± 0.07 mm (P < 0.05); bone, 3.17 ± 0.10 mm (P < 0.05); and splint, 3.79 ± 0.13 mm (P < 0.05). The TRE values were consistent across CAS systems. Conclusion: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)93-99
Number of pages7
JournalOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume137
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2007

Fingerprint

Computer-Assisted Surgery
Oral Surgery
Splints
Fiducial Markers
Skin
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures
Head
Skeleton
Bone and Bones

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Comparison of 4 registration strategies for computer-aided maxillofacial surgery. / Metzger, Marc Christian; Rafii, Amir; Holhweg-Majert, Bettina; Pham, Annette M.; Strong, E Bradley.

In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 137, No. 1, 07.2007, p. 93-99.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Metzger, Marc Christian ; Rafii, Amir ; Holhweg-Majert, Bettina ; Pham, Annette M. ; Strong, E Bradley. / Comparison of 4 registration strategies for computer-aided maxillofacial surgery. In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2007 ; Vol. 137, No. 1. pp. 93-99.
@article{d33d48229fdb47cfa6e6a8dc40b145f4,
title = "Comparison of 4 registration strategies for computer-aided maxillofacial surgery",
abstract = "Purpose: Surgeons have recently started to use computer-aided surgery (CAS) to assist with maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. This study evaluates four different CAS registration strategies in the maxillofacial skeleton. Materials and Methods: Fifteen fiducial markers were placed on each of four cadaveric heads. Four registration protocols were used: 1) group 1-invasive markers, 2) group 2-skin surface, 3) group 3-bony landmark, 4) group 4-intraoral splint. Two observers registered each head twice with each of the four protocols and measured the target registration error (TRE). The process was repeated on two different navigation systems for confirmation. Results: The mean TRE values were: invasive, 1.13 ± 0.05 mm (P < 0.05); skin, 2.03 ± 0.07 mm (P < 0.05); bone, 3.17 ± 0.10 mm (P < 0.05); and splint, 3.79 ± 0.13 mm (P < 0.05). The TRE values were consistent across CAS systems. Conclusion: 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.",
author = "Metzger, {Marc Christian} and Amir Rafii and Bettina Holhweg-Majert and Pham, {Annette M.} and Strong, {E Bradley}",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "137",
pages = "93--99",
journal = "Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)",
issn = "0194-5998",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of 4 registration strategies for computer-aided maxillofacial surgery

AU - Metzger, Marc Christian

AU - Rafii, Amir

AU - Holhweg-Majert, Bettina

AU - Pham, Annette M.

AU - Strong, E Bradley

PY - 2007/7

Y1 - 2007/7

N2 - Purpose: Surgeons have recently started to use computer-aided surgery (CAS) to assist with maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. This study evaluates four different CAS registration strategies in the maxillofacial skeleton. Materials and Methods: Fifteen fiducial markers were placed on each of four cadaveric heads. Four registration protocols were used: 1) group 1-invasive markers, 2) group 2-skin surface, 3) group 3-bony landmark, 4) group 4-intraoral splint. Two observers registered each head twice with each of the four protocols and measured the target registration error (TRE). The process was repeated on two different navigation systems for confirmation. Results: The mean TRE values were: invasive, 1.13 ± 0.05 mm (P < 0.05); skin, 2.03 ± 0.07 mm (P < 0.05); bone, 3.17 ± 0.10 mm (P < 0.05); and splint, 3.79 ± 0.13 mm (P < 0.05). The TRE values were consistent across CAS systems. Conclusion: 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.

AB - Purpose: Surgeons have recently started to use computer-aided surgery (CAS) to assist with maxillofacial reconstructive surgery. This study evaluates four different CAS registration strategies in the maxillofacial skeleton. Materials and Methods: Fifteen fiducial markers were placed on each of four cadaveric heads. Four registration protocols were used: 1) group 1-invasive markers, 2) group 2-skin surface, 3) group 3-bony landmark, 4) group 4-intraoral splint. Two observers registered each head twice with each of the four protocols and measured the target registration error (TRE). The process was repeated on two different navigation systems for confirmation. Results: The mean TRE values were: invasive, 1.13 ± 0.05 mm (P < 0.05); skin, 2.03 ± 0.07 mm (P < 0.05); bone, 3.17 ± 0.10 mm (P < 0.05); and splint, 3.79 ± 0.13 mm (P < 0.05). The TRE values were consistent across CAS systems. Conclusion: 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34250780640&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34250780640&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.015

DO - 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 17599573

AN - SCOPUS:34250780640

VL - 137

SP - 93

EP - 99

JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

SN - 0194-5998

IS - 1

ER -