Comparison of wired and wireless electromagnetic hand motion tracking in central venous access: Are they equivalent enough to cut the cord?

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL

Medical Engineering & Physics Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.medengphy.2024.104280

Hamza Ali , Oussama Metrouh , Muneeb Ahmed , John D. Mitchell , Vincent Baribeau , Matthew R. Palmer , Christopher MacLellan , Jeffrey Weinstein

{"title":"Comparison of wired and wireless electromagnetic hand motion tracking in central venous access: Are they equivalent enough to cut the cord?","authors":"Hamza Ali , Oussama Metrouh , Muneeb Ahmed , John D. Mitchell , Vincent Baribeau , Matthew R. Palmer , Christopher MacLellan , Jeffrey Weinstein","doi":"10.1016/j.medengphy.2024.104280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aims to compare a commercially available wired and wireless tracker in motion analysis of interventional radiologists performing simulated ultrasound-guided central venous access.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and material</h3><div>Interventional radiologists were asked to volunteer for the study. Participants were asked to place central venous lines on a commercially available, standardized manikin as their needle hand and ultrasound probe motion were recorded using electromagnetic trackers. Each participant performed a total of 10 trials, with 5 trials recorded using a wired tracker and 5 using a wireless tracker. Institution-developed software was used to calculate established motion metrics (path length and number of movements). The motion metrics from the two trackers were compared.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seven interventional radiologists participated in the study. Path length (wireless vs. wired: 773.1 cm ± 85.7 cm vs. 959.5 cm ± 303.6 cm, <em>p</em> < 0.001) and number of movements (193 ± 52 vs. 231 ± 50.5, <em>p</em> = 0.001) differed significantly between the two trackers; however, the time to complete the procedure (51.8 s ± 14.8 s vs. 49.8 s ± 10.5 s, <em>p</em> = 0.68) was similar across trackers.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The motion metrics of the same operators differ significantly between wired and wireless trackers. Accounting for the sampling frame rate and the frame efficiency of the wireless sensors can provide comparable motion data.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49836,"journal":{"name":"Medical Engineering & Physics","volume":"136 ","pages":"Article 104280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Engineering & Physics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350453324001802","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to compare a commercially available wired and wireless tracker in motion analysis of interventional radiologists performing simulated ultrasound-guided central venous access.

Methods and material

Interventional radiologists were asked to volunteer for the study. Participants were asked to place central venous lines on a commercially available, standardized manikin as their needle hand and ultrasound probe motion were recorded using electromagnetic trackers. Each participant performed a total of 10 trials, with 5 trials recorded using a wired tracker and 5 using a wireless tracker. Institution-developed software was used to calculate established motion metrics (path length and number of movements). The motion metrics from the two trackers were compared.

Results

Seven interventional radiologists participated in the study. Path length (wireless vs. wired: 773.1 cm ± 85.7 cm vs. 959.5 cm ± 303.6 cm, p < 0.001) and number of movements (193 ± 52 vs. 231 ± 50.5, p = 0.001) differed significantly between the two trackers; however, the time to complete the procedure (51.8 s ± 14.8 s vs. 49.8 s ± 10.5 s, p = 0.68) was similar across trackers.

Conclusion

The motion metrics of the same operators differ significantly between wired and wireless trackers. Accounting for the sampling frame rate and the frame efficiency of the wireless sensors can provide comparable motion data.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Medical Engineering & Physics 工程技术-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

4.50%

发文量

172

审稿时长

3.0 months

期刊介绍： Medical Engineering & Physics provides a forum for the publication of the latest developments in biomedical engineering, and reflects the essential multidisciplinary nature of the subject. The journal publishes in-depth critical reviews, scientific papers and technical notes. Our focus encompasses the application of the basic principles of physics and engineering to the development of medical devices and technology, with the ultimate aim of producing improvements in the quality of health care.Topics covered include biomechanics, biomaterials, mechanobiology, rehabilitation engineering, biomedical signal processing and medical device development. Medical Engineering & Physics aims to keep both engineers and clinicians abreast of the latest applications of technology to health care.