1. Optical Tracking

2. How this pertains to our project Distributed Instrument Control with TINI using CORBA Distributed Computer Ethernet TINI RS-232 Polaris Optical Tracker Drew and I will be developing an IDL that can interface between The TINI device and the network and between the Polaris and the TINI.

3. What is Tracking? The process of pinpointing the location of instruments, anatomical structures, and/or landmarks in three dimensional space and in relationship to each other Synonymous with Localization Localization is used for registration of the surgical space to image space, as represented by preoperative MRI and CT images

4. Why do we need tracking? Intraoperative Guidance Without tracking, the surgeon is required to rely on succesive steps of needle placement, image verification, needle advancement and re-imaging and so on, until the target is reached This is slow, which raises the likelihood that a patient can move and reduce accuracy

5. General Concept of Tracking Almost all tracking, with the exception of mechanical, is done using some form of electromagnetic radiation

6. General Concept of Tracking Markers are placed on the body of which the position is to be determined These markers are adapted to emit energy in response to an activation signal (active) or reflect energy from an activable source (passive)

7. General Concept of Tracking A sensor detects the energy emitted or reflected by the markers The energy detection is translated to positional information using various techniques: triangulation, time-of-flight calculation

8. General Concept of Tracking Markers can be placed on a probe with known fixed length to allow the measurement of discrete points on the surfaces of exposed, rigid anatomical structures

10. Sensor Modalities in Tracking Determines position of a sensor endpoint based upon measurements of joint angles, potentiometers Example systems: Faro Arm, NeuroNavigator Mechanical

11. Sensor Modalities in Tracking Tracks the positions of one or more actively illuminated or passively reflective markers and uses geometric triangulation to determine the locations of these markers. Example systems: NDI Optotrak, Polaris Optical

12. Sensor Modalities in Tracking Measures electrical currents induced in receiver coils when the receiver is moved within a magnetic field generated by an emitter Example systems: Polhemous, Flock of Birds Magnetic

13. Sensor Modalities in Tracking Sensors receive signals which are emitted by ultrasonic emitters and determine location via time-of-flight Example system: Sonic Wand Acoustic

14. Optical Tracking: How it Works Multiple charge couple device (CCD) sensors are used to detect the energy emitted (active) or reflected (passive) by the marker. A single point marker is energized per sensor cycle to emit infrared energy From the patent papers of Polaris

15. Optical Tracking: How it Works During each sensor cycle, the emitted energy focused on to the sensor is collected It is then shifted to the sensor processing circuitry To determine the 3D position of the marker, the marker must be detected on at least three sensor axes (to cover a minimum of three orthogonal planes) From the patent papers of Polaris

16. Optical Tracking: How it Works Mathematical processing using the technique of triangulation determines the 3D coordinates and angular orientation i.e. 6 DOF From the patent papers of Polaris

17. What is Triangulation? Given three rays that intersect at one point, if you know the angles of the rays from the three sources and the 3D coordinates of the three sources, the distance from the point of intersection of the three rays and the sources can be determined. Similar process used in GPS receivers

18. Comparing Effectiveness: Some Sensor Characteristics Accuracy – measure of the difference between estimated and correct measurement values, where all sensor measurements are estimates Resolution – smallest change which can be detected by the sensor Bandwidth – measure of amount of information which can be acquired and processed by the sensor per unit of time (Hz)

19. Comparing Effectiveness: Some Sensor Characteristics Active/passive – mentioned previously Contact/Non-Contact – whether or not the sensor comes into physical contact with the object being measured Cost

20. MechanicalOpticalMagneticAcoustic Accuracy0.1 – 2.5 mm ~5 mm~1 mm ResolutionBest ~ 0.01 mm ~0.1 mm Bandwidth>3000Hz100-2500 Hz20-100Hz500-1000Hz Interference Sources Physical occlusion Heat, occlusion Ferrous objects, magnetic fields Temp, humidity, occlusion ExamplesFaro Arm, NeuroNavigat or OptoTrak 3020, Polaris Polhemus, Flock of Birds Sonic Wand Contact/ Non- Contact Direct Contact Contact w/targets Passive/ActivePassiveEitherActive Comparison of Position/ Orientation Sensing Modalites

21. Optical Tracking: Advantages Minimally invasive compared to fiducial approach, no need for extra surgery, extra cost Small, light weight, unobtrusive in the OR Very high resolution:.01 mm High bandwidth, though not as high as mechanical Low Cost (according to manufacturer)

22. Optical Tracking: Advantages High Degree of Accuracy –0.1 to 2.5 mm accuracy –In a study reported in the paper “Comparison of Relative Accuracy Between a Mechanical and an Optical Position Tracker for Image-Guided Neurosurgery,” Rohling et al, found that optical was more accurate than mechanical in the case of NDI’s Optotrak vs. FARO Most Importantly

23. Optical Tracking: Disadvantages “Line of sight” requirement –According to Cleary et al, in “Technology Improvements for Image Guided and Minimally Invasive Spine Procedures,” ‘the major drawback of optical systems is the requirement that a line-of-sight between the trackers and the camera remain at all times. This line of sight requirement can be cumbersome and difficult to maintain in the delicate surgical environment…This may reduce the acceptance of image-guided spine surgery among physicians.’

24. Conclusion Optical Tracking is a highly effective and accurate technique for localization with the only disadvantage being the maintenance of ‘line-of-sight’ with the cameras

25. References Howe, Robert and Matsuoka, Yoky, “Robotics for Surgery,” Draft, Ann. Rev Biomed Eng. 1:211- 240, 1999. Leis; Eldon, Stephen, US Patent 6,061,644 “System for determining the spatial postion and orientation of a body,” Dec 5, 1997. Simon, D.A. “Intra-Operative Position Sensing and Tracking Devices” Cleary, et al. “Technology Improvements for Image-guided and Minimally Invasive Spine Procedures,” Draft, Transactions on IT in Biomedicine, Jan 2001.

26. References Rohling, et al. “Comparison of Relative Accuracy Between a Mechanical and an Optical Position Tracker for Image-Guided Neurosurgery” Northern Digital Product Information, www.ndigital.com