The Impact of Operator Experience on the Accuracy of Neuronavigation Systems

Abstract

Introduction

Neuronavigation systems have become an essential tool for accurate surgical guidance. However, the influence of operator experience on the accuracy of these systems is still debated.

Objective

This study aims to investigate the accuracy and precision of neuronavigation in an environment mimicking the conditions found in a surgical room and the impact of operator experience.

Methods

We conducted a series of experiments using a neuronavigation system with operators of varying levels of experience. The accuracy of the system was measured and compared across 3 different operators.

Results

Inexperienced operators exhibited significantly lower levels of accuracy compared with their more experienced counterparts. The measured accuracy for an experienced operator was 2.9 ± 1.2mm, with an overall mean of 3.5 ± 1.7 mm when including results from inexperienced individuals. The best scenario appears to be when the point of interest is in the right temporal region, closer to the stereo vision camera of the tracking system.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate different accuracies in the neuronavigation system between operators with varying levels of experience. However, individuals without prior experience or training exhibit an acceptable level of accuracy for its use in surgical applications.

Resumo

Introdução

Os sistemas de neuronavegação tornaram-se uma ferramenta essencial para a orientação cirúrgica precisa. No entanto, a influência da experiência do operador na precisão desses sistemas ainda é debatida.

Objetivo

Este estudo visa investigar a acurácia e a precisão da neuronavegação em um ambiente que simula as condições encontradas em uma sala cirúrgica e o impacto da experiência do operador.

Métodos

Realizamos uma série de experimentos utilizando um sistema de neuronavegação com operadores de diferentes níveis de experiência. A precisão do sistema foi medida e comparada entre 3 operadores diferentes.

Resultados

Os operadores inexperientes apresentaram níveis de precisão significativamente menores em comparação com seus colegas mais experientes. A precisão medida para um operador experiente foi de 2,9 ± 1, 2 mm, com uma média geral de 3,5 ± 1,7 mm ao incluir os resultados de indivíduos inexperientes. O melhor cenário parece ser quando o ponto de interesse está na região temporal direita, mais próximo da câmera de visão estereoscópica do sistema de rastreamento.

Conclusão

Nossos resultados demonstram diferentes precisões no sistema de neuronavegação entre operadores com diferentes níveis de experiência. No entanto, indivíduos sem experiência ou treinamento prévio demonstram um nível aceitável de precisão para seu uso em aplicações cirúrgicas.

Keywords

neuronavigation - classification - education - methods - instrumentation - statistic and numerical data

Palavras-chave

neuronavegação - classificação - educação - métodos - instrumentação - estatística e dados numéricos

Publication History

Received: 07 August 2025

Accepted: 10 November 2025

Article published online:
29 December 2025

• References

• 1 Ganslandt O, Behari S, Gralla J, Fahlbusch R, Nimsky C. Neuronavigation: Concept, Techniques and Applications; 2002.
• 2 Wang MN, Song ZJ. Classification and analysis of the errors in neuronavigation. Neurosurgery 2011; 68 (04) 1131-1143 , discussion 1143
• 3 Fick T, van Doormaal JAM, Hoving EW, Willems PWA, van Doormaal TPC. Current Accuracy of Augmented Reality Neuronavigation Systems: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg 2021; 146: 179-188
• 4 Shamir RR, Freiman M, Joskowicz L, Spektor S, Shoshan Y. Surface-based facial scan registration in neuronavigation procedures: a clinical study. J Neurosurg 2009; 111 (06) 1201-1206
• 5 Roethe AL, Rösler J, Misch M, Vajkoczy P, Picht T. Augmented reality visualization in brain lesions: a prospective randomized controlled evaluation of its potential and current limitations in navigated microneurosurgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2022; 164 (01) 3-14
• 6 Cho J, Rahimpour S, Cutler A, Goodwin CR, Lad SP, Codd P. Enhancing Reality: A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality in Neuronavigation and Education. World Neurosurg 2020; 139: 186-195
• 7 Fitzpatrick JM, West JB, Maurer Jr CR. Predicting error in rigid-body point-based registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998; 17 (05) 694-702
• 8 West JB, Fitzpatrick JM. The Distribution of Target Registration Error in Rigid-Body, Point-Based Registration. In 1999:460–465.
• 9 Kuehn B, Mularski S, Schoenherr S. et al. Sensor-based neuronavigation: evaluation of a large continuous patient population. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2008; 110 (10) 1012-1019
• 10 Grauvogel TD, Engelskirchen P, Semper-Hogg W, Grauvogel J, Laszig R. Navigation accuracy after automatic- and hybrid-surface registration in sinus and skull base surgery. PLoS One 2017; 12 (07) e0180975
• 11 Mert A, Gan LS, Knosp E, Sutherland GR, Wolfsberger S. Advanced cranial navigation. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (Suppl. 01) 43-53
• 12 Paraskevopoulos D, Unterberg A, Metzner R, Dreyhaupt J, Eggers G, Wirtz CR. Comparative study of application accuracy of two frameless neuronavigation systems: experimental error assessment quantifying registration methods and clinically influencing factors. Neurosurg Rev 2010; 34 (02) 217-228
• 13 Holland MT, Mansfield K, Mitchell A, Burchiel KJ. Hidden Error in Optical Stereotactic Navigation Systems and Strategy to Maximize Accuracy. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2021; 99 (05) 369-376
• 14 Shamir RR, Joskowicz L, Spektor S, Shoshan Y. Target and trajectory clinical application accuracy in neuronavigation. Neurosurgery 2011; 68 (1, Suppl Operative) 95-101 , discussion 101–102
• 15 Pfisterer WK, Papadopoulos S, Drumm DA, Smith K, Preul MC. Fiducial versus nonfiducial neuronavigation registration assessment and considerations of accuracy. Neurosurgery 2008; 62 (3, Suppl 1) 201-207 , discussion 207–208
• 16 Carl B, Bopp M, Saß B. et al. Reliable navigation registration in cranial and spine surgery based on intraoperative computed tomography. Neurosurg Focus 2019; 47 (06) E11
• 17 Maruyama K, Watanabe E, Kin T. et al. Smart Glasses for Neurosurgical Navigation by Augmented Reality. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2018; 15 (05) 551-556
• 18 Mascott CR, Sol JC, Bousquet P, Lagarrigue J, Lazorthes Y, Lauwers-Cances V. Quantification of true in vivo (application) accuracy in cranial image-guided surgery: influence of mode of patient registration. Neurosurgery 2006; 59 (1, Suppl 1) ONS146-ONS156 , discussion ONS146–ONS156
• 19 Zhao Y, Yu S, Wang R, Zhao J. Clinical application of a neuronavigation system in transsphenoidal surgery of pituitary macroadenoma. Neurosurg Rev 2006; 29 (04) 306-311 , discussion 311–312
• 20 Ji D, Dong Y, Wang M, Song Z. Accuracy analysis of line-based registration for image guided neurosurgery at different operating areas - a phantom study. Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon) 2017; 22 (sup1): 148-156
• 21 Knott PD, Maurer CR, Gallivan R, Roh HJ, Citardi MJ. The impact of fiducial distribution on headset-based registration in image-guided sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 131 (05) 666-672
• 22 Novák V, Hrabálek L, Valošek J. et al. The use of an O-arm in endonasal endoscopic operations of the skull base. BMC Surg 2021; 21 (01) 58
• 23 McLaughlin N, Carrau RL, Kassam AB, Kelly DF. Neuronavigation in endonasal pituitary and skull base surgery using an autoregistration mask without head fixation: an assessment of accuracy and practicality. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2012; 73 (06) 351-357
• 24 Salma A, Makiese O, Sammet S, Ammirati M. Effect of registration mode on neuronavigation precision: an exploration of the role of random error. Comput Aided Surg 2012; 17 (04) 172-178