nach oben

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery

Erschienen in:

30.03.2023 | Original Article

Comparison of 2D and autostereoscopic 3D visualization during mixed reality simulation

verfasst von: Viktor Vörös, Jef De Smet, Mouloud Ourak, Vladimir Poliakov, Jan Deprest, Tom Kimpe, Emmanuel Vander Poorten

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | Ausgabe 9/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

In general minimally invasive surgical procedures, surgeons are tied to 2D visualization, leading to the loss of depth perception. This can lead to large mental load for the surgeons and may be responsible for the long learning curve. To restore the sense of depth, this study investigated the use and benefits of an autostereoscopic (3D) display during a simulated laparoscopic task.

Methods

A mixed reality simulator was developed for comparing the performance of participants while using 2D and autostereoscopic 3D visualization. An electromagnetic sensor was mounted on a physical instrument, and its pose was mapped to the virtual instrument. The virtual scene was developed using Simulation Open Framework Architecture (SOFA). Finite element modeling was used to calculate interaction forces, which were then mapped to visual soft tissue deformation.

Results

Ten non-expert participants completed a virtual laparoscopic task, where the subjects were asked to contact eighteen target areas distributed on the surface of the vagina, both in 2D and 3D. Results showed an improvement with 3D vision in task completion time (–16%), total traveled distance (–25%) and errors made (–14%). There was no difference in the average contact forces between the vagina and the instrument. Only the difference in time and forces were shown to be statistically significant.

Conclusion

Overall, autostereoscopic 3D showed superiority over conventional 2D visualization. The traveled trajectory increased in 2D as the instrument was retracted more between the targets to avoid contact. The 2D and 3D deformation upon contact seems not to contribute differently to force perception. However, the participants only had visual feedback, but no haptic feedback. Therefore, it could be interesting to include haptic feedback in a future study.

Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Vallancien G (2009) The current status of laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol 55(5):1089–1105CrossRefPubMed

Alleblas CCJ, de Man AM, van den Haak L, Vierhout ME, Jansen FW, Nieboer TE (2017) Prevalence of Musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery. Ann Surg 266(6):905–920. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002223CrossRefPubMed

Hamad GG, Curet M (2010) Minimally invasive surgery. Am J Surg 199(2):263–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJSURG.2009.05.008CrossRefPubMed

Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210(3):306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAMCOLLSURG.2009.10.017CrossRefPubMed

Roh HF, Nam SH, Kim JM (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191628CrossRef

Gómez E, Carrasco-Valiente J, Valero-Rosa J, Campos Hernández JP, Anglada-Curado F, Carazo-Carazo J, Font-Ugalde P, Tapia MJ (2014) Impact of 3d vision on mental workload and laparoscopic performance in inexperienced subjects. Acta Urol Espanol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2014.09.008CrossRef

Tanagho Y, Andriole G, Paradis A, Madison K, Sandhu G, Varela E, Benway B (2012) 2d versus 3d visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0220CrossRef

Sengül A, Barsi A, Ribeiro D, Bleuler H (2013) Role of holographic displays and stereovision displays in patient safety and robotic surgery. Adv Intell Syst Comput 194:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33932-5-14CrossRef

Jourdan I, Dutson E, Garcia A, Vleugels T, Leroy J, Mutter D, Marescaux J (2004) Stereoscopic vision provides a significant advantage for precision robotic laparoscopy. Br J Surg 91:879–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4549

10.

Bergen P, Kunert W, Bessell J, Buess G (1998) Comparative study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional vision systems for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 12:948–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900754

11.

Taffinder N, Smith S, Huber J, Russell R, Darzi A (1999) The effect of a second-generation 3d endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 13:1087–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901179CrossRefPubMed

12.

Tevaearai Stahel H, Mueller X, Segesser L (2000) 3-D vision improves performance in a pelvic trainer. Endoscopy 32:464–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-643CrossRef

13.

Kong S-H, Oh B-M, Yoon H, Ahn H, Lee H-J, Chung S, Shiraishi N, Kitano S, Yang H-K (2009) Comparison of two- and three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic performance: a novel 3D system with one camera. Surg Endosc 24:1132–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0740-8CrossRefPubMed

14.

Silvestri M, Simi M, Cavallotti C, Vatteroni M, Ferrari V, Freschi C, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Dario P (2011) Autostereoscopic three-dimensional viewer evaluation through comparison with conventional interfaces in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 18(3):223–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350611411491. (PMID: 21742655)CrossRefPubMed

15.

Urey H, Chellappan K, Erden E, Surman P (2011) State of the art in stereoscopic and autostereoscopic displays. In: Proceedings of the IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2010.2098351

16.

Nomura K, Kikuchi D, Kaise M, Iizuka T, Ochiai Y, Suzuki Y, Fukuma Y, Tanaka M, Okamoto Y, Yamashita S, Matsui A, Mitani T, Hoteya S (2019) Comparison of 3D endoscopy and conventional 2D endoscopy in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo animal study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06726-wCrossRefPubMed

17.

Thomsen MN, Lang RD (2004) An experimental comparison of 3-Dimensional and 2-Dimensional endoscopic systems in a model. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 20(4):419–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2004.01.003CrossRef

18.

Guanà R, Ferrero L, Garofalo S, Cerrina A, Cussa D, Arezzo A, Schleef J (2017) Skills comparison in pediatric residents using a 2-Dimensional versus a 3-Dimensional high-definition camera in a pediatric laparoscopic simulator. J Surg Educ 74(4):644–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSURG.2016.12.002CrossRefPubMed

19.

Romero-Loera S, Cárdenas-Lailson LE, De La Concha-Bermejillo F, Crisanto-Campos BA, Valenzuela-Salazar C, Moreno-Portillo M (2016) Skills comparison using a 2D vs 3D laparoscopic simulator. Cirugia Y Cirujanos 84(1):37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIRCIR.2015.06.032CrossRefPubMed

20.

Blavier A, Gaudissart Q, Cadière GB, Nyssen AS (2007) Comparison of learning curves and skill transfer between classical and robotic laparoscopy according to the viewing conditions: implications for training. Am J Surg 194(1):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJSURG.2006.10.014CrossRefPubMed

21.

De Smet J, Poliakov V, Niu K, Fornier J, Ahmad MA, Ourak M, Viktor V, Deprest J, Vander Poorten E ( 2019) Evaluating the Potential Benefit of Autostereoscopy in Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy through VR Simulation. In: 19th International conference on advanced robotics (ICAR), pp. 572– 577

22.

Turner LC, Kantartzis K, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP (2014) The effect of age on complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral Colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 25(9):1251–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2391-0CrossRefPubMed

23.

Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS (2001) Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obst Gynecol 98(4):646–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01472-7

24.

SOFA. https://www.sofa-framework.org/ Accessed 2023-01-05

25.

Omari EA, Varghese T, Kliewer MA, Harter J, Hartenbach EM (2015) Dynamic and quasi-static mechanical testing for characterization of the viscoelastic properties of human uterine tissue. J Biomech 48(10):1730–1736CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Murray JW (2017) Building virtual reality with unity and steamvr. CRC Press, Boca Raton

Titel: Comparison of 2D and autostereoscopic 3D visualization during mixed reality simulation
verfasst von: Viktor Vörös
Jef De Smet
Mouloud Ourak
Vladimir Poliakov
Jan Deprest
Tom Kimpe
Emmanuel Vander Poorten
Publikationsdatum: 30.03.2023
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery / Ausgabe 9/2023
Print ISSN: 1861-6410
Elektronische ISSN: 1861-6429
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02876-4

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Comparison of 2D and autostereoscopic 3D visualization during mixed reality simulation