【24h】

Comparison of an Optical and a Mechanical Navigation System

机译:光学导航系统和机械导航系统的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Different technologies have been used for computer assisted orthopaedic surgery for acquisition of surfaces and motions, but the most efficient are optical and mechanical. In this study we compared two specific systems of these categories: FlashPoint~(TM) 5000 (Image Guided Technologies, USA) and FAROArm~(TM) (FARO Technologies, USA). FARO Arm showed an intrinsic uncertainty of 0.1mm overcoming FlashPoint (0.2mm). However their use in noisy conditions resulted in similar application-uncertainty. FARO Ann can track motion at 31 Hz while FlashPoint at 17Hz, therefore FlashPoint spatial resolution may be critical during fast movements. In simulated medical applications FARO Arm showed some difficulties (ⅰ) when used for passive motion with negligible forces, because the surgeon has to compensate its weight and (ⅱ) during sample trajectory, because it has isolated singularities within its workspace. FlashPoint was affected by reflected light and required complete visibility during tracking of large trajectories. However its use in in-vivo conditions is more promising than FARO-Arm's.
机译:计算机辅助骨科手术已采用了不同的技术来获取表面和运动,但最有效的是光学和机械技术。在本研究中,我们比较了这些类别的两个特定系统:FlashPointTM 5000(美国图像引导技术)和FAROArmTM(美国FARO技术)。 FARO Arm克服FlashPoint(0.2mm)表现出0.1mm的固有不确定性。但是,在嘈杂条件下使用它们会导致类似的应用不确定性。 FARO Ann可以跟踪31 Hz的运动,而FlashPoint可以跟踪17Hz的运动,因此FlashPoint的空间分辨率在快速移动过程中可能至关重要。在模拟医疗应用中,FARO Arm在以微不足道的力用于被动运动时表现出一些困难(ⅰ),因为外科医生必须在样品运动过程中补偿其重量,而(ⅱ)因为其工作空间内具有孤立的奇异点。 FlashPoint受反射光的影响,并且在跟踪大轨迹时需要完全可见。但是,在体内条件下使用它比FARO-Arm更有前景。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号