ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Characterization of Ultrasound Probe-Dependent Interference in Electromagnetic Tracking for Image-Guided Procedures.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound (US) imaging is widely used to guide minimally invasive procedures such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), while electromagnetic (EM) tracking can complement US guidance by providing line-of-sight-independent instrument localization. However, US probes may distort the EM tracking field in a probe-dependent manner. This study characterized probe-induced EM interference for a conventional 3D/4D phased-array probe and a handheld wireless probe. Three experiments were conducted using an EM tracking system: spatial mapping of interference along each probe body, assessment of probe-sensor separation for the handheld probe, and evaluation of probe-induced tracking deviations in a simulated EM-guided PCNL setup with tracked needle and catheter sensors. EM-US calibration was then performed using low-interference sensor positions. The phased-array probe produced minimal disturbance, maintaining submillimetric positional and subdegree orientational precision across tested modes. Compared with the evaluated phased-array probe, the evaluated handheld wireless probe generated stronger, spatially localized interference, requiring ≥75 mm positional and ≥50 mm orientational separation to recover baseline precision. In the PCNL simulation, the phased-array probe maintained tracking stability, whereas the handheld probe introduced localized deviations. Both probes produced RMS calibration residuals below 1 mm under controlled conditions. These results provide device-specific baseline measurements and a workflow for probe-dependent interference assessment and sensor-placement optimization in EM-US navigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.