Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive intracranial drain placement is a common neurosurgical emergency procedure in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We aimed to retrospectively investigate the accuracy of conventional freehand (bedside) hemorrhage drain placement and to prospectively compare the accuracy of augmented/mixed reality-guided (AR) versus frame-based stereotaxy-guided (STX) and freehand drain placement in a phantom model. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center analysis evaluated the accuracy of drain placement in 73 consecutive ICH with a visual rating of postinterventional CT data. In a head phantom with a simulated deep ICH, five neurosurgeons performed four punctures for each technique: STX, AR, and the freehand technique. The Euclidean distance to the target point and the lateral deviation of the achieved trajectory from the planned trajectory at target point level were compared between the three methods. RESULTS: Analysis of the clinical cases revealed an optimal drainage position in only 46/73 (63%). Correction of the drain was necessary in 23/73 cases (32%). In the phantom study, accuracy of AR was significantly higher than the freehand method (P<0.001 for both Euclidean and lateral distances). The Euclidean distance using AR (median 3 mm) was close to that using STX (median 1.95 mm; P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that the accuracy of the freehand technique was low and that subsequent position correction was common. In a phantom model, AR drainage placement was significantly more precise than the freehand method. AR has great potential to increase precision of emergency intracranial punctures in a bedside setting.