Advertisement

Assessment of Image-Guided Interventions

  • Pierre Jannin
  • Werner Korb

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.

Keywords

Assessment Objective Assessment Study Assessment Methodology Specification Phase Target Registration Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. Bland JM and Altman DG (1986). “Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement”. Lancet, 1, 307-310.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Corbillon E (2002). “Computer-assisted surgery progress report.” ANAES, Saint-Denis La Plaine.Google Scholar
  5. Crothers IR, Gallagher AG, McClure N, James DTD (1999). “Experienced laparoscopic surgeons are automated to the “fulcrum effect”: An ergonomic demonstration.” Endoscopy, 31(5), 365-369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeLucia PR, Mather RD, Griswold JA, Mitra S (2006). “Toward the improvement of image-guided interventions for minimally invasive surgery: Three factors that affect performance.” Hum Factors, 48(1), 23-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Draaisma WA, Buskens E, Bais JE, Simmermacher RKJ, Rijnhart-de Jong HG, Broeders IAMJ, Gosszen HG (2006). “Randomized clinical trial and follow-up study of cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus conventional Nissen fundop-lication.” Br J Surg, 93, 690-697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Fitzpatrick JM and West JB (2001). “The distribution of target registration error in rigid-body point-based registration.” IEEE Trans Med Imag 20(9), 917-927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fryback DG and Thornbury JR (1991). “The efficacy of diagnostic imaging.” Med Decis Making, 11, 88-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbons MD, Gunn CG, Niwas S, Sillers MJ (2001). “Cost analysis of computer-aided endoscopic sinus surgery.” Am J Rhinol, 15(2), 71-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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].
  13. 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].
  14. Goossens RHM and van Veelen MA (2001). “Assessment of ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery.” Min Invas Ther Allied Technol, 10(3), 175-179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanssen WEJ, Kuhry E, Casseres, Herder WW, Steyerberg EW, Bonjer HJ (2006). “Safety and efficacy of endoscopic retroperitoneal adenalectomy.” Br J Surg, 93, 715-719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 14155-1+2 (2003). “Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects. Part 1+2.”Google Scholar
  17. ISO 14971 (2001). “Medical devices - Application of risk management to medical devices.”Google Scholar
  18. ISO 9000 (2000). “Quality management systems - Fundamentals and vocabulary. International organization for standardization.”Google Scholar
  19. Jannin P, Fitzpatrick JM, Hawkes DJ, Pennec X, Shahidi R, Vannier MW (2002). “Validation of medical image processing in image-guided therapy.” IEEE Trans Med Imag, 21(11), 1445-1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jannin P, Grova C, Maurer C (2006). “Model for designing and reporting reference based validation procedures in medical image processing.” Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 1(2)2, 1001-1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korb W, Kornfeld M, Birkfellner W, Boesecke R, Figl M, Fuerst M, Kettenbach J, Vogler A, Hassfeld S, Kronreif G (2005). “Risk analysis and safety assessment in surgical robotics: A case study on a biopsy robot.” Minim Invasive Ther, 14 (1), 23-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Langlotz F, Kereliuk CM, Anderegg C (2006). “Augmenting the effective field of view of optical tracking cameras - A way to overcome difficulties during intraoperative camera alignment.” Comput Aided Surg, 11(1), 31-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martelli S, Nofrini L, Vendruscolo P, Visani A (2003). “Criteria of interface evaluation for computer assisted surgery systems.” Int J Med Informat, 72, 35-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matern U and Waller P (1999). “Instrument for minimally invasive surgery: Principles of ergonomic handles.” Surg Endosc, 13, 174-182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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].
  28. Nelson AA (1980). “Research design: Measurement, reliability and validity.” Am J Hosp Pharm, 37, 851-857.Google Scholar
  29. 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].
  30. 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].
  31. Paleologos TS, Wadley JP, Kitchen ND, Thomas DGT (2000). “Clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of interactive image-guided craniotomy: Clinical comparison between conventional and image-guided meningioma surgery.” Neurosurgery, 47 (1), 40-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pichler C von, Radermacher K, Rau G (1996). “The state of 3D technology and evaluation.” Min Invax Ther Allied Technol, 5, 419-426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pocock SJ (2004). Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach, Wiley, New York, ISBN 0-471-90155-5.Google Scholar
  34. Solomon MJ, Stephen MS, Gallinger S, White GH (1994). “Does intraoperative hepatic ultrasonography change surgical decision making during liver re-section?”. The Am J Surg, 168, 307-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Van Veelen MA, Meijer DW, Goossens RHM, Snijders CJ (2001). “New ergonomic design criteria for handles of laparoscopic dissection forceps.” J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech, 11(1), 17-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Jannin
    • 1
  • Werner Korb
    • 2
  1. 1.INSERM, Faculté de Médecine CSFrance
  2. 2.University LeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations