Assessment of Image-Guided Interventions
Assessment of systems and procedures in image-guided interventions (IGI) is crucial but complex, and addresses diverse aspects. This chapter introduces a framework for dealing with this complexity and diversity, and is based on some of the major related concepts in health care. Six assessment levels are distinguished in IGI. The main phases and components of assessment methodology are described with an emphasis on the specification and the reporting phases, and on the clear initial formulation of the assessment objective. The methodology is presented in a systematic order to allow interinstitutional comparison. Finally, we outline the need for standardization in IGI assessment to improve the quality of systems, their acceptance by surgeons, and facilitate their transfer from research to clinical practice.
KeywordsAssessment Objective Assessment Study Assessment Methodology Specification Phase Target Registration Error
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Balci O (2003). “Verification, validation and certification of modeling and simulation applications”. In: Proceedings of the 35th conference on Winter Simulation: Driving innovation, New Orleans, Louisiana, 150-158.Google Scholar
- Bland JM and Altman DG (1986). “Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement”. Lancet, 1, 307-310.Google Scholar
- Chow S-C and Liu JP (2004). Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials: Concepts and Methodologies, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, ISBN 0-471-24985-8.Google Scholar
- Corbillon E (2002). “Computer-assisted surgery progress report.” ANAES, Saint-Denis La Plaine.Google Scholar
- Evans CH and Ildstad ST (2001). Small Clinical Trials: Issues and Challenges. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington DC. Fitzpatrick JM, West JB, Maurer CR, Jr (1998). “Predicting error in rigid-body, point-based registration.” IEEE Trans Med Imag, 17, 694-702.Google Scholar
- Global Harmonization Task Force, Quality Management Systems (2004). “Process validation guidance” GHTF/SG3/N99-10: http://www.ghtf.org/sg3/inven-torysg3/sg3_fd_n99-10_edition2.pdf [Accessed September 2007].
- Goodman CS (2004). “Introduction to health care technology assessment.” Nat. Library of Medicine/NICHSR: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta101_c1.html [Accessed September 2007].
- ISO 14155-1+2 (2003). “Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects. Part 1+2.”Google Scholar
- ISO 14971 (2001). “Medical devices - Application of risk management to medical devices.”Google Scholar
- ISO 9000 (2000). “Quality management systems - Fundamentals and vocabulary. International organization for standardization.”Google Scholar
- Korb W, Grunert R, Burgert O, Dietz A, Jacobs S, Falk V, Meixensberger J, Strauss G, Trantakis C, Lemke HU, Jannin P (2006). “An assessment model of the efficacy of image-guided therapy.” Int J Comp Assist Radiol Surg, 1, 515-516.Google Scholar
- Medical Device Directive, Council Directive 93/42/EEC20 of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. European Community, Official Journal L 169, 1-43.Google Scholar
- National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC), The University of Birmingham: Surgical Robots.Update (2002) http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/horizon/PDF_files/2002reports/RobotsUpdate.pdf and http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/horizon/PDF_files/2000reports/Surgical_robots.PDF [Accessed September 2007].
- Nelson AA (1980). “Research design: Measurement, reliability and validity.” Am J Hosp Pharm, 37, 851-857.Google Scholar
- OHTAC Recommendation (2004a). “Computer assisted hip and knee arthrop-lasty: Navigation and robotic systems.”http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/rev_arthro_020104.pdf [Accessed September 2007].
- OHTAC Recommendation (2004b). “Computer assisted surgery using tele-manipulators.”http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/rev_teleman_020104.pdf[Accessed September 2007].
- Pocock SJ (2004). Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach, Wiley, New York, ISBN 0-471-90155-5.Google Scholar
- Strauss G, Koulechov K, Röttger S, Bahner J, Trantakis C, Hofer M, Korb W, Burgert O, Meixensberger J, Manzey D, Dietz A, Lüth T (2006). “Evaluation of a navigation system for ENT with surgical efficiency criteria.” Lary-ngoscope, 116(4), 564-572.Google Scholar