The clinical validation included 11 patients undergoing AR-guided EVD placement and 11 treated with the freehand method.
Key findings:
- Functional placement: Achieved in all AR-guided cases vs. 7 in the freehand group.
- Optimal placement: Reached in 8 AR cases (including 2 slit ventricles) vs. 3 freehand.
- Failed placement: None in the AR group, one in the freehand group.
- Reinterventions required: 0 with AR vs. 4 with freehand technique.
“The reinterventions, along with the implied multitude of attempts, constituted the primary cause of all procedure-related complications in the freehand group,” the authors state.
They further note: “Although for some cases freehand placement might have been equally successful, the distinct improvement over the control group indicates that the freehand technique may not consistently yield straightforward results.”