Literature DB >> 35737194

Multicenter assessment of augmented reality registration methods for image-guided interventions.

Ningcheng Li1, Jonathan Wakim2, Yilun Koethe1, Timothy Huber1, Ryan Schenning1, Terence P Gade2, Stephen J Hunt2, Brian J Park3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate manual and automatic registration times and registration accuracies on HoloLens 2 for aligning a 3D CT phantom model onto a CT grid, a crucial step for intuitive 3D navigation during CT-guided interventions; to compare registration times between HoloLens 1 and 2.
METHODS: Eighteen participants in various stages of clinical training across two academic centers performed registration of a 3D CT phantom model onto a CT grid using HoloLens 2. Registration times and accuracies were compared among different registration methods, clinical experience levels, and consecutive attempts. Registration times were also compared retrospectively to prior HoloLens 1 results.
RESULTS: Mean aggregate manual registration times were 27.7 s, 24.3 s, and 72.8 s for one-handed gesture, two-handed gesture, and Xbox controller, respectively; mean automatic registration time was 5.3 s (ANOVA p < 0.0001). No significant difference in registration times was found among attendings, residents and fellows, and medical students (p > 0.05). Significant improvements in registration times were detected across consecutive attempts using hand gestures (p < 0.01). Compared to prior HoloLens 1 data, hand gesture registration was 81.7% faster with HoloLens 2 (p < 0.05). Registration accuracies were not significantly different across manual registration methods, measuring at 5.9 mm, 9.5 mm, and 8.6 mm with one-handed gesture, two-handed gesture, and Xbox controller, respectively (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Manual registration times decreased significantly on HoloLens 2, approaching those of automatic registration and outperforming Xbox controller registration. Fast, adaptive, and accurate registration of holographic models of cross-sectional imaging is paramount for the implementation of augmented reality-assisted 3D navigation during CT-guided interventions.
© 2022. Italian Society of Medical Radiology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D visualization; Augmented reality; CT-guided intervention; HoloLens; Interventional radiology; Mixed reality; Registration

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35737194     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01515-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   6.313


  23 in total

1.  Implementing Virtual and Augmented Reality Tools for Radiology Education and Training, Communication, and Clinical Care.

Authors:  Raul N Uppot; Benjamin Laguna; Colin J McCarthy; Gianluca De Novi; Andrew Phelps; Eliot Siegel; Jesse Courtier
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Mixed reality computed tomography-based surgical planning for partial nephrectomy using a head-mounted holographic computer.

Authors:  Soichiro Yoshida; Maki Sugimoto; Shohei Fukuda; Naoji Taniguchi; Kazutaka Saito; Yasuhisa Fujii
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 3.369

3.  Head-Mounted Display Use in Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rafa Rahman; Matthew E Wood; Long Qian; Carrie L Price; Alex A Johnson; Greg M Osgood
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 2.058

4.  Virtual and augmented reality: potential applications in radiology.

Authors:  Mohammad Elsayed; Nadja Kadom; Comeron Ghobadi; Benjamin Strauss; Omran Al Dandan; Abhimanyu Aggarwal; Yoshimi Anzai; Brent Griffith; Frances Lazarow; Christopher M Straus; Nabile M Safdar
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 1.990

5.  Clinical Feasibility of a Wearable Mixed-Reality Device in Neurosurgery.

Authors:  Fatih Incekara; Marion Smits; Clemens Dirven; Arnaud Vincent
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 2.104

6.  A Patient-Specific Mixed-Reality Visualization Tool for Thoracic Surgical Planning.

Authors:  Stephanie L Perkins; Brooke Krajancich; Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; Brian A Hargreaves; Bruce L Daniel; Mark F Berry
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Harnessing Augmented Reality and CT to Teach First-Year Medical Students Head and Neck Anatomy.

Authors:  Joanna K Weeks; Jina Pakpoor; Brian J Park; Nicole J Robinson; Neal A Rubinstein; Stephen M Prouty; Arun C Nachiappan
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Through the HoloLens™ looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3D vascular models with perforating vessels.

Authors:  Philip Pratt; Matthew Ives; Graham Lawton; Jonathan Simmons; Nasko Radev; Liana Spyropoulou; Dimitri Amiras
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2018-01-31

9.  Augmented reality-enhanced navigation in endoscopic sinus surgery: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Maximilian Linxweiler; Lukas Pillong; Dragan Kopanja; Jan P Kühn; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Julia C Radosa; Jingming Wang; Luc G T Morris; Basel Al Kadah; Florian Bochen; Sandrina Körner; Bernhard Schick
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-08-07

10.  Augmented reality-guided periacetabular osteotomy-proof of concept.

Authors:  Pascal Kiarostami; Cyrill Dennler; Simon Roner; Reto Sutter; Philipp Fürnstahl; Mazda Farshad; Stefan Rahm; Patrick O Zingg
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.