Skip to main content

Assessment of Image-Guided Interventions

  • Chapter
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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryback DG and Thornbury JR (1991). “The efficacy of diagnostic imaging.” Med Decis Making, 11, 88-94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons MD, Gunn CG, Niwas S, Sillers MJ (2001). “Cost analysis of computer-aided endoscopic sinus surgery.” Am J Rhinol, 15(2), 71-75.

    Article  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].

  • Goossens RHM and van Veelen MA (2001). “Assessment of ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery.” Min Invas Ther Allied Technol, 10(3), 175-179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matern U and Waller P (1999). “Instrument for minimally invasive surgery: Principles of ergonomic handles.” Surg Endosc, 13, 174-182.

    Article  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].

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pichler C von, Radermacher K, Rau G (1996). “The state of 3D technology and evaluation.” Min Invax Ther Allied Technol, 5, 419-426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pocock SJ (2004). Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach, Wiley, New York, ISBN 0-471-90155-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jannin, P., Korb, W. (2008). Assessment of Image-Guided Interventions. In: Peters, T., Cleary, K. (eds) Image-Guided Interventions. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73858-1_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73858-1_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-73856-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-73858-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics