Neurosurgical focus · 2021
Evaluation of the precision of operative augmented reality compared to standard neuronavigation using a 3D-printed skull.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Haemmerli Julien, Davidovic Alioucha, Meling Torstein R, Chavaz Lara, Schaller Karl, Bijlenga Philippe
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Augmented reality (AR) in cranial surgery allows direct projection of preregistered overlaid images in real time on the microscope surgical field. In this study, the authors aimed to compare the precision of AR-assisted navigation and standard pointer-based neuronavigation (NV) by using a 3D-printed skull in surgical conditions.
METHODS: A commercial standardized 3D-printed skull was scanned, fused, and referenced with an MR image and a CT scan of a patient with a 2 × 2-mm right frontal sinus defect. The defect was identified, registered, and integrated into NV. The target was physically marked on the 3D-printed skull replicating the right frontal sinus defect. Twenty-six subjects participated, 25 of whom had no prior NV or AR experience and 1 with little AR experience. The subjects were briefly trained in how to use NV, AR, and AR recalibration tools. Participants were asked to do the following: 1) "target the center of the defect in the 3D-printed skull with a navigation pointer, assisted only by NV orientation," and 2) "use the surgical microscope and AR to focus on the center of the projected object" under conventional surgical conditions. For the AR task, the number of recalibrations was recorded. Confidence regarding NV and AR precision were assessed prior to and after the experiment by using a 9-level Likert scale.
RESULTS: The median distance to target was statistically lower for AR than for NV (1 mm [Q1: 1 mm, Q3: 2 mm] vs 3 mm [Q1: 2 mm, Q3: 4 mm] [p < 0.001]). In the AR task, the median number of recalibrations was 4 (Q1: 4, Q3: 4.75). The number of recalibrations was significantly correlated with the precision (Spearman rho: -0.71, p < 0.05). The trust assessment after performing the experiment scored a median of 8 for AR and 5.5 for NV (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows for the first time the superiority of AR over NV in terms of precision. AR is easy to use. The number of recalibrations performed using reference structures increases the precision of the navigation. The confidence regarding precision increases with experience.
METHODS: A commercial standardized 3D-printed skull was scanned, fused, and referenced with an MR image and a CT scan of a patient with a 2 × 2-mm right frontal sinus defect. The defect was identified, registered, and integrated into NV. The target was physically marked on the 3D-printed skull replicating the right frontal sinus defect. Twenty-six subjects participated, 25 of whom had no prior NV or AR experience and 1 with little AR experience. The subjects were briefly trained in how to use NV, AR, and AR recalibration tools. Participants were asked to do the following: 1) "target the center of the defect in the 3D-printed skull with a navigation pointer, assisted only by NV orientation," and 2) "use the surgical microscope and AR to focus on the center of the projected object" under conventional surgical conditions. For the AR task, the number of recalibrations was recorded. Confidence regarding NV and AR precision were assessed prior to and after the experiment by using a 9-level Likert scale.
RESULTS: The median distance to target was statistically lower for AR than for NV (1 mm [Q1: 1 mm, Q3: 2 mm] vs 3 mm [Q1: 2 mm, Q3: 4 mm] [p < 0.001]). In the AR task, the median number of recalibrations was 4 (Q1: 4, Q3: 4.75). The number of recalibrations was significantly correlated with the precision (Spearman rho: -0.71, p < 0.05). The trust assessment after performing the experiment scored a median of 8 for AR and 5.5 for NV (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows for the first time the superiority of AR over NV in terms of precision. AR is easy to use. The number of recalibrations performed using reference structures increases the precision of the navigation. The confidence regarding precision increases with experience.