Sidney Roberts1, Aditya Desai1, Enrico Checcucci2,3, Stefano Puliatti3,4,5,6, Mark Taratkin3,7, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski3,8,9, Juan Gomez Rivas3,10, Ines Rivero3,11, Domenico Veneziano3,12, Riccardo Autorino13, Francesco Porpiglia3, Inderbir S Gill1,14, Giovanni E Cacciamani15,3,14,16. 1. Keck School of Medicine, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. School of Medicine, Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy. 3. European Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Office (YAU) Uro-Technology Working Group, Arnhem, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, OLV, Aalst, Belgium. 6. ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium. 7. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. 8. Virgen Macarena University Hospital, Seville, Spain. 9. Department of Urology and Urosurgery, University Hospital of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. 10. Department of Urology, Clinico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 11. Department of Urology and Nephrology, Virgen del Rocío University Hospital, Seville, Spain. 12. Department of Urology, Riuniti Hospital, Reggio Calabria, Italy. 13. Division of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA. 14. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Center at USC Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 15. Keck School of Medicine, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA - giovanni.cacciamani@med.usc.edu. 16. Keck School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Augmented reality (AR) applied to surgical procedures refers to the superimposition of preoperative or intraoperative images into the operative field. Augmented reality has been increasingly used in myriad surgical specialties including urology. The following study reviews advance in the use of AR for improvements in urologic outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We identified all descriptive, validity, prospective randomized/nonrandomized trials and retrospective comparative/noncomparative studies about the use of AR in urology until March 2021. The Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were used for literature search. We conducted the study selection according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement) Guidelines. We limited included studies to only those using AR, excluding all that used virtual reality technology. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 60 studies were identified and included in the present analysis. Overall, 19 studies were descriptive/validity/phantom studies for specific AR methodologies, 4 studies were case reports, and 37 studies included clinical prospective/retrospective comparative studies. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in AR have led to increasing registration accuracy as well as increased ability to identify anatomic landmarks and improve outcomes during urologic procedures such as RARP and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.
INTRODUCTION: Augmented reality (AR) applied to surgical procedures refers to the superimposition of preoperative or intraoperative images into the operative field. Augmented reality has been increasingly used in myriad surgical specialties including urology. The following study reviews advance in the use of AR for improvements in urologic outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We identified all descriptive, validity, prospective randomized/nonrandomized trials and retrospective comparative/noncomparative studies about the use of AR in urology until March 2021. The Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were used for literature search. We conducted the study selection according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement) Guidelines. We limited included studies to only those using AR, excluding all that used virtual reality technology. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 60 studies were identified and included in the present analysis. Overall, 19 studies were descriptive/validity/phantom studies for specific AR methodologies, 4 studies were case reports, and 37 studies included clinical prospective/retrospective comparative studies. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in AR have led to increasing registration accuracy as well as increased ability to identify anatomic landmarks and improve outcomes during urologic procedures such as RARP and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.
Authors: Pasquale Arpaia; Egidio De Benedetto; Lucio De Paolis; Giovanni D'Errico; Nicola Donato; Luigi Duraccio Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.847