nach oben

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery

Erschienen in:

25.03.2017 | Original Article

Comparison of optical see-through head-mounted displays for surgical interventions with object-anchored 2D-display

verfasst von: Long Qian, Alexander Barthel, Alex Johnson, Greg Osgood, Peter Kazanzides, Nassir Navab, Bernhard Fuerst

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | Ausgabe 6/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Optical see-through head-mounted displays (OST-HMD) feature an unhindered and instantaneous view of the surgery site and can enable a mixed reality experience for surgeons during procedures. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to identify the criteria for evaluation of OST-HMD technologies for specific clinical scenarios, which benefit from using an object-anchored 2D-display visualizing medical information.

Methods

Criteria for evaluating the performance of OST-HMDs for visualization of medical information and its usage are identified and proposed. These include text readability, contrast perception, task load, frame rate, and system lag. We choose to compare three commercially available OST-HMDs, which are representatives of currently available head-mounted display technologies. A multi-user study and an offline experiment are conducted to evaluate their performance.

Results

Statistical analysis demonstrates that Microsoft HoloLens performs best among the three tested OST-HMDs, in terms of contrast perception, task load, and frame rate, while ODG R-7 offers similar text readability. The integration of indoor localization and fiducial tracking on the HoloLens provides significantly less system lag in a relatively motionless scenario.

Conclusions

With ever more OST-HMDs appearing on the market, the proposed criteria could be used in the evaluation of their suitability for mixed reality surgical intervention. Currently, Microsoft HoloLens may be more suitable than ODG R-7 and Epson Moverio BT-200 for clinical usability in terms of the evaluated criteria. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that presents a methodology and conducts experiments to evaluate and compare OST-HMDs for their use as object-anchored 2D-display during interventions.

Vorheriger Artikel IPCAI 2017 Special Issue: Information Processing for Computer-Assisted Interventions, 8th International Conference 2017—Part 1

Nächster Artikel SLIM (slit lamp image mosaicing): handling reflection artifacts

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

ODG R-7: https://www.osterhoutgroup.com/products-r7-glasses.

Testing Smart-glasses to Superimpose Images for Surgery: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/testing-smartglasses-to-superimpose-images-for-surgery.

Epson Moverio BT-200: https://epson.com/moverio-augmented-reality.

Microsoft HoloLens: https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens.

Vuforia SDK: https://www.vuforia.com/.

Unity3D Game Engine: https://unity3d.com/.

GoPro Hero4: https://gopro.com/.

Abe Y, Sato S, Kato K, Hyakumachi T, Yanagibashi Y, Ito M, Abumi K (2013) A novel 3D guidance system using augmented reality for percutaneous vertebroplasty: technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 19(4):492–501CrossRefPubMed

Armstrong DG, Rankin TM, Giovinco NA, Mills JL, Matsuoka Y (2014) A heads-up display for diabetic limb salvage surgery a view through the google looking glass. J Diabetes Sci Technol 8:951–956CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Azimi E, Doswell J, Kazanzides P (2012) Augmented reality goggles with an integrated tracking system for navigation in neurosurgery. In: 2012 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshops (VRW), pp 123–124. doi:10.1109/VR.2012.6180913

Badiali G, Ferrari V, Cutolo F, Freschi C, Caramella D, Bianchi A, Marchetti C (2014) Augmented reality as an aid in maxillofacial surgery: validation of a wearable system allowing maxillary repositioning. J Craniomaxillofacial Surg 42(8):1970–1976CrossRef

Bajura M, Fuchs H, Ohbuchi R (1992) Merging virtual objects with the real world: Seeing ultrasound imagery within the patient. SIGGRAPH 26(2):203–210. doi:10.1145/142920.134061

Bichlmeier C, Ockert B, Heining SM, Ahmadi A, Navab N (2008) Stepping into the operating theater: ARAV—augmented reality aided vertebroplasty. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. ISMAR ’08, pp 165–166. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC. doi:10.1109/ISMAR.2008.4637348

Chen X, Xu L, Wang Y, Wang H, Wang F, Zeng X, Wang Q, Egger J (2015) Development of a surgical navigation system based on augmented reality using an optical see-through head-mounted display. J Biomed Inform 55:124–131CrossRefPubMed

Cutolo F, Parchi PD, Ferrari V (2014) Video see through AR head-mounted display for medical procedures. In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), p 393–396. doi:10.1109/ISMAR.2014.6948504

Hart SG (2006) NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 50. Sage Publications, pp 904–908. doi:10.1177/154193120605000909

10.

Herron D, Lantis Ii J, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg S (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display. Surg Endosc 13(8):751–755CrossRefPubMed

11.

Hoffman DM, Girshick AR, Akeley K, Banks MS (2008) Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. J Vision 8(3):33–33CrossRef

12.

Itoh Y, Amano T, Iwai D, Klinker G (2016) Gaussian light field: estimation of viewpoint-dependent blur for optical see-through head-mounted displays. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 22(11):2368–2376CrossRefPubMed

13.

Janin AL, Mizell DW, Caudell TP (1993) Calibration of head-mounted displays for augmented reality applications. In: Proceedings of VR annual international symposium, p 246–255. doi:10.1109/VRAIS.1993.380772

14.

Kersten-Oertel M, Jannin P, Collins DL (2012) DVV: a taxonomy for mixed reality visualization in image guided surgery. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 18(2):332–352CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kersten-Oertel M, Jannin P, Collins DL (2013) The state of the art of visualization in mixed reality image guided surgery. Comput Med Imaging Graph 37(2):98–112CrossRefPubMed

16.

Koesveld J, Tetteroo G, Graaf E (2003) Use of head-mounted display in transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Endosc 17(6):943–946CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kramida G (2016) Resolving the vergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted displays. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 22(7):1912–1931CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kress B, Starner T (2013) A review of head-mounted displays (HMD) technologies and applications for consumer electronics. Proc SPIE 8720:87200A–87200A-13. doi:10.1117/12.2015654

19.

Liao H, Inomata T, Sakuma I, Dohi T (2010) Three-dimensional augmented reality for mriguided surgery using integral videography auto stereoscopic-image overlay. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 57(6):1476–1486CrossRefPubMed

20.

Maithel S, Villegas L, Stylopoulos N, Dawson S, Jones D (2005) Simulated laparoscopy using a head-mounted display vs traditional video monitor: an assessment of performance and muscle fatigue. Surg Endosc 19(3):406–411CrossRefPubMed

21.

Martin-Gonzalez A, Heining SM, Navab N (2009) Head-mounted virtual loupe with sight-based activation for surgical applications. In: 2009 8th IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality, pp 207–208

22.

Mentler T, Wolters C, Herczeg M (2015) Use cases and usability challenges for head-mounted displays in healthcare. Curr Dir Biomed Eng 1(1):534–537

23.

Milgram P, Colquhoun H (1999) A taxonomy of real and virtual world display integration. Mixed Real Merg Real Virtual World 1:1–26

24.

Morisawa T, Kida H, Kusumi F, Okinaga S, Ohana M (2015) Endoscopic submucosal dissection using head-mounted display. Gastroenterology 149(2):290–291CrossRefPubMed

25.

Ortega G, Wolff A, Baumgaertner M, Kendoff D (2008) Usefulness of a head mounted monitor device for viewing intraoperative fluoroscopy during orthopaedic procedures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(10):1123–1126CrossRefPubMed

26.

Qian L, Winkler A, Fuerst B, Kazanzides P, Navab N (2016) Reduction of interaction space in single point active alignment method for optical see-through head-mounted display calibration. In: 2016 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR-Adjunct), pp 156–157

27.

Queisner M (2016) Medical screen operations: how head-mounted displays transform action and perception in surgical practice. Mediat 6(1):30–51

28.

Rolland JP, Fuchs H (2000) Optical versus video see-through head-mounted displays in medical visualization. Presence Teleoperator Virtual Environ 9(3):287–309CrossRef

29.

Sadda P, Azimi E, Jallo G, Doswell J, Kazanzides P (2012) Surgical navigation with a head-mounted tracking system and display. Stud Health Technol Inform 184:363–369

30.

Shuhaiber JH (2004) Augmented reality in surgery. Arch Surg 139(2):170–174CrossRefPubMed

31.

Suthau T, Vetter M, Hassenpflug P, Meinzer HP, Hellwich O (2002) A concept work for augmented reality visualisation based on a medical application in liver surgery. ISPRS Arch 34(5):274–280

32.

Sutherland IE (1968) A head-mounted three dimensional display. In: Proceedings of the fall joint computer conference, part I, ACM, p 757–764, 9–11 December 1968

33.

Thomsen MN, Lang RD (2004) An experimental comparison of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional endoscopic systems in a model. Arthroscopy 20(4):419–423CrossRefPubMed

34.

Thrun S, Leonard JJ (2008) Simultaneous localization and mapping. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 871–889

35.

Tuceryan M, Navab N (2000) Single point active alignment method (SPAAM) for optical see-through HMD calibration for AR. In: Proceedings IEEE and ACM international symposium on augmented reality (ISAR 2000), pp 149–158

36.

Wagner D, Reitmayr G, Mulloni A, Drummond T, Schmalstieg D (2008) Pose Tracking from natural features on mobile phones. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality, Washington, DC, USA, pp 125–134

37.

Wang H, Wang F, Leong APY, Xu L, Chen X, Wang Q (2015) Precision insertion of percutaneous sacroiliac screws using a novel augmented reality-based navigation system: a pilot study. Int Orthop 40:1–7

38.

Wang J, Suenaga H, Hoshi K, Yang L, Kobayashi E, Sakuma I, Liao H (2014) Augmented reality navigation with automatic marker-free image registration using 3-d image overlay for dental surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61(4):1295–1304CrossRefPubMed

39.

Wilcoxon F, Katti S, Wilcox RA (1970) Critical values and probability levels for the wilcoxon rank sum test and the wilcoxon signed rank test. Sel Table Math Stat 1:171–259

40.

Yoon JW, Chen RE, Han PK, Si P, Freeman WD, Pirris SM (2016) Technical feasibility and safety of an intraoperative head-up display device during spine instrumentation. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. doi:10.1002/rcs.1770

41.

Yoshida S, Kihara K, Takeshita H, Nakanishi Y, Kijima T, Ishioka J, Matsuoka Y, Numao N, Saito K, Fujii Y (2014) Head-mounted display for a personal integrated image monitoring system: ureteral stent placement. Urol Int 94(1):117–120

42.

Zhang X, Chen G, Liao H (2016) High quality see-through surgical guidance system using enhanced 3d autostereoscopic augmented reality. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. doi:10.1109/TBME.2016.2624632

Titel: Comparison of optical see-through head-mounted displays for surgical interventions with object-anchored 2D-display
verfasst von: Long Qian
Alexander Barthel
Alex Johnson
Greg Osgood
Peter Kazanzides
Nassir Navab
Bernhard Fuerst
Publikationsdatum: 25.03.2017
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery / Ausgabe 6/2017
Print ISSN: 1861-6410
Elektronische ISSN: 1861-6429
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-017-1564-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2017

Real-time surgical tool tracking and pose estimation using a hybrid cylindrical marker

Force-assisted ultrasound imaging system through dual force sensing and admittance robot control

Geometric modeling of hepatic arteries in 3D ultrasound with unsupervised MRA fusion during liver interventions

SLIM (slit lamp image mosaicing): handling reflection artifacts

Automatic anatomical labeling of arteries and veins using conditional random fields

Model-based registration of preprocedure MR and intraprocedure US of the lumbar spine