Table 1 Overview of studies comparing ARNS to CNS
Study | Year | Type | HMD | Registration | Tracking | Visualization | Error | Task | Subjects | Tracked Instrument | Anatomy | Model | Evaluation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Translational (Mean ± Sd) (mm) | Angular (Mean ± Sd) (◦) | Depth | |||||||||||||
Mueller et al.27 | 2020 | Expl. | HL 1 | IBR | MT (ARNS) OT (CNS) | Superimposition | 3.4 ± 1.6a (ARNS) 3.2 ± 2.0a (CNS) | 4.3 ± 2.3 (ARNS) 3.5 ± 1.4 (CNS) | None | Pre-drilling +insertion of K-wire | 1 Surgeon (expert) | Sleeve | Complex anatomy (spine) | 3 Cadaver Specimens | CT |
Wolf et al.30 | 2023 | Expl. | HL 2 | PPR | OT (ARNS/CNS) | Superimposition, Virtual Twin, Sectional Views, Target Cross, Peripheral Rings | None | Expert/ Novices (median) 1.7/1.8 (CNS) 1.1/0.8 (Target Cross) 2.0/2.0 (Peripheral Rings) 1.7/1.4 (Overlay) 0.9/1.2 (Virtual Twin) 1.2/1.2 (Sectional Views) | None | Drilling holes | 14 (10 novices + 4 experts) | Sleeve | Complex anatomy (spine) | Phantom | OT |
This study | 2024 | XO RCT | HL 2 | IBR | OT (ARNS/CNS) | Virtual Twin | 1.11 ± 0.47d (ARNS), 1.04 ± 0.47d (CNS). 0.95 ± 0.42a (ARNS), 0.98 ± 0.46a (CNS). 0.93 ± 0.41b (ARNS), 0.97 ± 0.45b (CNS). 1.00 ± 0.52c (ARNS), 0.92 ± 0.51c (CNS). | 1.11 ± 0.61 (ARNS) 0.73 ± 0.36 (CNS) | 1.27 ± 1.59 (ARNS) 0.52 ± 0.82 (CNS) | Drilling holes | 36 (12 students, 12 surgeons, 12 engineers) | Drill | Universal | Foam block | CT |