Matthias N van Oosterom1,2, Henk G van der Poel3, Nassir Navab4,5, Cornelis J H van de Velde2, Fijs W B van Leeuwen1,3. 1. Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology. 2. Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden. 3. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Computer Aided Medical Procedures (CAMP), Technische Universität München, Institut für Informatik, Garching bei München, Germany. 5. Computer Aided Medical Procedures (CAMP), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an overview of the developments made for virtual- and augmented-reality navigation procedures in urological interventions/surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Navigation efforts have demonstrated potential in the field of urology by supporting guidance for various disorders. The navigation approaches differ between the individual indications, but seem interchangeable to a certain extent. An increasing number of pre- and intra-operative imaging modalities has been used to create detailed surgical roadmaps, namely: (cone-beam) computed tomography, MRI, ultrasound, and single-photon emission computed tomography. Registration of these surgical roadmaps with the real-life surgical view has occurred in different forms (e.g. electromagnetic, mechanical, vision, or near-infrared optical-based), whereby the combination of approaches was suggested to provide superior outcome. Soft-tissue deformations demand the use of confirmatory interventional (imaging) modalities. This has resulted in the introduction of new intraoperative modalities such as drop-in US, transurethral US, (drop-in) gamma probes and fluorescence cameras. These noninvasive modalities provide an alternative to invasive technologies that expose the patients to X-ray doses. Whereas some reports have indicated navigation setups provide equal or better results than conventional approaches, most trials have been performed in relatively small patient groups and clear follow-up data are missing. SUMMARY: The reported computer-assisted surgery research concepts provide a glimpse in to the future application of navigation technologies in the field of urology.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an overview of the developments made for virtual- and augmented-reality navigation procedures in urological interventions/surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Navigation efforts have demonstrated potential in the field of urology by supporting guidance for various disorders. The navigation approaches differ between the individual indications, but seem interchangeable to a certain extent. An increasing number of pre- and intra-operative imaging modalities has been used to create detailed surgical roadmaps, namely: (cone-beam) computed tomography, MRI, ultrasound, and single-photon emission computed tomography. Registration of these surgical roadmaps with the real-life surgical view has occurred in different forms (e.g. electromagnetic, mechanical, vision, or near-infrared optical-based), whereby the combination of approaches was suggested to provide superior outcome. Soft-tissue deformations demand the use of confirmatory interventional (imaging) modalities. This has resulted in the introduction of new intraoperative modalities such as drop-in US, transurethral US, (drop-in) gamma probes and fluorescence cameras. These noninvasive modalities provide an alternative to invasive technologies that expose the patients to X-ray doses. Whereas some reports have indicated navigation setups provide equal or better results than conventional approaches, most trials have been performed in relatively small patient groups and clear follow-up data are missing. SUMMARY: The reported computer-assisted surgery research concepts provide a glimpse in to the future application of navigation technologies in the field of urology.
Authors: Iulia Andras; Elio Mazzone; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Geert De Naeyer; Matthias N van Oosterom; Sergi Beato; Tessa Buckle; Shane O'Sullivan; Pim J van Leeuwen; Alexander Beulens; Nicolae Crisan; Frederiek D'Hondt; Peter Schatteman; Henk van Der Poel; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Paolo Dell'Oglio; Elio Mazzone; Tessa Buckle; Tobias Maurer; Nassir Navab; Matthias N van Oosterom; Clare Schilling; Max Jh Witjes; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Joachim Klode; Boris Vojnovic; Alexandre Mottrie; Henk G van der Poel; Freddie Hamdy; Fijs Wb van Leeuwen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-15
Authors: C M de Korne; E M Wit; J de Jong; R A Valdés Olmos; T Buckle; F W B van Leeuwen; H G van der Poel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rachel Hecht; Ming Li; Quirina M B de Ruiter; William F Pritchard; Xiaobai Li; Venkatesh Krishnasamy; Wael Saad; John W Karanian; Bradford J Wood Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Samaneh Azargoshasb; Krijn H M Houwing; Paul R Roos; Sven I van Leeuwen; Michael Boonekamp; Elio Mazzone; Kevin Bauwens; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Matthias N van Oosterom Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lianne M Wellens; Jene Meulstee; Cornelis P van de Ven; C E J Terwisscha van Scheltinga; Annemieke S Littooij; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Marta Fiocco; Anne C Rios; Thomas Maal; Marc H W A Wijnen Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-04-05
Authors: Albertus Wijnand Hensbergen; Danny M van Willigen; Florian van Beurden; Pim J van Leeuwen; Tessa Buckle; Margret Schottelius; Tobias Maurer; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.774