Mourad Adballah1,2, Yamid Espinel1, Lilian Calvet1,3, Bruno Pereira3, Bertrand Le Roy1,4, Adrien Bartoli1,3, Emmanuel Buc5,6. 1. Institut Pascal, UMR6602, Endoscopy and Computer Vision Group, Faculté de Médecine, Bâtiment 3C, 28 place Henri Dunant, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 2. Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital Clermont-Ferrand, 1 Place Lucie et Raymond Aubrac, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand Cedex, France. 3. Biostatistics Department (DRCI), University Hospital Clermont-Ferrand, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 4. Department of Digestive and Oncologic Surgery, University Hospital Nord St-Etienne, Avenue Albert Raimond, 42270, Saint-Priest en Jarez, France. 5. Institut Pascal, UMR6602, Endoscopy and Computer Vision Group, Faculté de Médecine, Bâtiment 3C, 28 place Henri Dunant, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. ebuc@chu-clermontferrand.fr. 6. Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital Clermont-Ferrand, 1 Place Lucie et Raymond Aubrac, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand Cedex, France. ebuc@chu-clermontferrand.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of our augmented reality (AR) software (Hepataug) during laparoscopic resection of liver tumours and compare it to standard ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety pseudo-tumours ranging from 10 to 20 mm were created in sheep cadaveric livers by injection of alginate. CT-scans were then performed and 3D models reconstructed using a medical image segmentation software (MITK). The livers were placed in a pelvi-trainer on an inclined plane, approximately perpendicular to the laparoscope. The aim was to obtain free resection margins, as close as possible to 1 cm. Laparoscopic resection was performed using US alone (n = 30, US group), AR alone (n = 30, AR group) and both US and AR (n = 30, ARUS group). R0 resection, maximal margins, minimal margins and mean margins were assessed after histopathologic examination, adjusted to the tumour depth and to a liver zone-wise difficulty level. RESULTS: The minimal margins were not different between the three groups (8.8, 8.0 and 6.9 mm in the US, AR and ARUS groups, respectively). The maximal margins were larger in the US group compared to the AR and ARUS groups after adjustment on depth and zone difficulty (21 vs. 18 mm, p = 0.001 and 21 vs. 19.5 mm, p = 0.037, respectively). The mean margins, which reflect the variability of the measurements, were larger in the US group than in the ARUS group after adjustment on depth and zone difficulty (15.2 vs. 12.8 mm, p < 0.001). When considering only the most difficult zone (difficulty 3), there were more R1/R2 resections in the US group than in the AR + ARUS group (50% vs. 21%, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection using AR seems to provide more accurate resection margins with less variability than the gold standard US navigation, particularly in difficult to access liver zones with deep tumours.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of our augmented reality (AR) software (Hepataug) during laparoscopic resection of liver tumours and compare it to standard ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety pseudo-tumours ranging from 10 to 20 mm were created in sheep cadaveric livers by injection of alginate. CT-scans were then performed and 3D models reconstructed using a medical image segmentation software (MITK). The livers were placed in a pelvi-trainer on an inclined plane, approximately perpendicular to the laparoscope. The aim was to obtain free resection margins, as close as possible to 1 cm. Laparoscopic resection was performed using US alone (n = 30, US group), AR alone (n = 30, AR group) and both US and AR (n = 30, ARUS group). R0 resection, maximal margins, minimal margins and mean margins were assessed after histopathologic examination, adjusted to the tumour depth and to a liver zone-wise difficulty level. RESULTS: The minimal margins were not different between the three groups (8.8, 8.0 and 6.9 mm in the US, AR and ARUS groups, respectively). The maximal margins were larger in the US group compared to the AR and ARUS groups after adjustment on depth and zone difficulty (21 vs. 18 mm, p = 0.001 and 21 vs. 19.5 mm, p = 0.037, respectively). The mean margins, which reflect the variability of the measurements, were larger in the US group than in the ARUS group after adjustment on depth and zone difficulty (15.2 vs. 12.8 mm, p < 0.001). When considering only the most difficult zone (difficulty 3), there were more R1/R2 resections in the US group than in the AR + ARUS group (50% vs. 21%, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection using AR seems to provide more accurate resection margins with less variability than the gold standard US navigation, particularly in difficult to access liver zones with deep tumours.
Authors: Li-Ming Su; Balazs P Vagvolgyi; Rahul Agarwal; Carol E Reiley; Russell H Taylor; Gregory D Hager Journal: Urology Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: C Goumard; O Farges; A Laurent; D Cherqui; O Soubrane; B Gayet; P Pessaux; F-R Pruvot; O Scatton Journal: J Visc Surg Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 2.043
Authors: Åsmund Avdem Fretland; Vegar Johansen Dagenborg; Gudrun Maria Waaler Bjørnelv; Airazat M Kazaryan; Ronny Kristiansen; Morten Wang Fagerland; John Hausken; Tor Inge Tønnessen; Andreas Abildgaard; Leonid Barkhatov; Sheraz Yaqub; Bård I Røsok; Bjørn Atle Bjørnbeth; Marit Helen Andersen; Kjersti Flatmark; Eline Aas; Bjørn Edwin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Andrew A Gumbs; Vincent Grasso; Nicolas Bourdel; Roland Croner; Gaya Spolverato; Isabella Frigerio; Alfredo Illanes; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Adrian Park; Eyad Elyan Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.847