Table 1.
Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking from recent reports
| Reference | Year | EMT field generator and type | EMT sensor and diameter | Test condition and environment | Accuracy (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhou et al80 | 2013 | Ascension trakSTAR, DC | Model 130, 1.3 mm | Absolute, in OR without interfering equipment nearby Absolute, in OR with interfering equipment nearby |
0.5±0.2 0.9±0.2 |
| Bharat et al87 | 2014 | Aurora EMT system, DC | 1.2 mm | Absolute, in an ideal environment Absolute, in an ideal environment with distorting equipment at 30 cm Post registration, EMT versus TRUS in ideal environment Post registration, EMT versus TRUS in OR |
0.26±0.16 >2 IP: 0.7±0.3 (maximum 1.7) OP: 0.1±0.1 (maximum 0.2) IP: 0.6±0.3 (maximum 1.5) OP: 0.4±0.2 (maximum 0.6) |
| Poulin et al88 | 2015 | Aurora planar FG, AC | Philips Percunav™18G ×15 cm biopsy needle | Post registration, EMT versus µCT in ideal environment | IP: 0.66±0.33 OP: 0.69±0.29 |
| Damato et al90 | 2014 | Ascension trakSTAR, DC | Model 90, 0.9 mm | Post registration, in an ideal environment, EMT versus CT | 0.6±0.2 |
Abbreviations: AC, alternating current; CT, computed tomography; DC, direct current; EMT, electromagnetic tracking; FG, field generator; OR, operating room; IP, in-plane; OP, out-of-plane, representing accuracy in catheter tip identification; TRUS, transrectal ultrasound.