Augmented reality in a tumor resection model
- 761 Downloads
Augmented Reality (AR) guidance is a technology that allows a surgeon to see sub-surface structures, by overlaying pre-operative imaging data on a live laparoscopic video. Our objectives were to evaluate a state-of-the-art AR guidance system in a tumor surgical resection model, comparing the accuracy of the resection with and without the system. Our system has three phases. Phase 1: using the MRI images, the kidney’s and pseudotumor’s surfaces are segmented to construct a 3D model. Phase 2: the intra-operative 3D model of the kidney is computed. Phase 3: the pre-operative and intra-operative models are registered, and the laparoscopic view is augmented with the pre-operative data.
We performed a prospective experimental study on ex vivo porcine kidneys. Alginate was injected into the parenchyma to create pseudotumors measuring 4–10 mm. The kidneys were then analyzed by MRI. Next, the kidneys were placed into pelvictrainers, and the pseudotumors were laparoscopically resected. The AR guidance system allows the surgeon to see tumors and margins using classical laparoscopic instruments, and a classical screen. The resection margins were measured microscopically to evaluate the accuracy of resection.
Ninety tumors were segmented: 28 were used to optimize the AR software, and 62 were used to randomly compare surgical resection: 29 tumors were resected using AR and 33 without AR. The analysis of our pathological results showed 4 failures (tumor with positive margins) (13.8%) in the AR group, and 10 (30.3%) in the Non-AR group. There was no complete miss in the AR group, while there were 4 complete misses in the non-AR group. In total, 14 (42.4%) tumors were completely missed or had a positive margin in the non-AR group.
Our AR system enhances the accuracy of surgical resection, particularly for small tumors. Crucial information such as resection margins and vascularization could also be displayed.
KeywordsAugmented reality Laparoscopic surgery Partial nephrectomy Resection margins
This research has received funding from the EU’s FP7 through the ERC research grant 307483 FLEXABLE.
Compliance with ethical standards
Dr Pauline Chauvet, Toby Collins, Clement Debize, Lorraine Novais-Gameiro, Bruno Pereira, Prs Adrien Bartoli and Michel Canis, and Dr Nicolas Bourdel have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Supplementary material 1 (MP4 56711 kb)
- 2.Marescaux J, Rubino F, Arenas M, Mutter D, Soler L (2004) Augmented-reality-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy. JAMA 292(18):2214–2215Google Scholar
- 3.Pessaux P, Diana M, Soler L, Piardi T, Mutter D, Marescaux J (2015) Towards cybernetic surgery: robotic and augmented reality-assisted liver segmentectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg Dtsch Ges Für Chir 400(3):381–385Google Scholar
- 6.Bourdel N, Collins T, Pizarro D, Bartoli A, Da Ines D, Perreira B et al (2016) Augmented reality in gynecologic surgery: evaluation of potential benefits for myomectomy in an experimental uterine model. Surg Endosc 2016Google Scholar
- 7.Bourdel N, Collins T, Pizarro D, Debize C, Grémeau A, Bartoli A et al (2017) Use of augmented reality in laparoscopic gynecology to visualize myomas. Fertil Steril 107(3):737–739Google Scholar
- 9.Collins T, Pizarro D, Bartoli A, Canis M, Bourdel N (2013) Realtime wide-baseline registration of the uterus in laparoscopic videos using multiple texture maps. In: Liao H, Linte CA, Masamune K, Peters TM, Zheng G (eds) Augmented reality environments for medical imaging and computer-assisted interventions [Internet]. Springer, Berlin; [cité 10 oct 2015], pp 162–171 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Disponible sur: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-40843-4_18
- 20.Ani I, Finelli A, Alibhai SMH, Timilshina N, Fleshner N, Abouassaly R (2013) Prevalence and impact on survival of positive surgical margins in partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a population-based study: positive surgical margins after partial nephrectomy for RCC. BJU Int 111(8):E300–E305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Rizzo S, Calareso G, De Maria F, Zanagnolo V, Lazzari R, Cecconi A et al (2013) Gynecologic tumors: how to communicate imaging results to the surgeon. Cancer Imaging Off Publ Int Cancer Imaging Soc 13(4):611–625Google Scholar
- 32.Paulus CJ, Haouchine N, Kong S-H, Soares RV, Cazier D, Cotin S (2017) Handling topological changes during elastic registration: application to augmented reality in laparoscopic surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12(3):461–470Google Scholar
- 38.Nakamoto M, Ukimura O, Gill IS, Mahadevan A, Miki T, Hashizume M et al (2008) Realtime organ tracking for endoscopic augmented reality visualization using miniature wireless magnetic tracker. In: Medical imaging and augmented reality. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, German, pp 359–366Google Scholar
- 42.Nosrati MS, Amir-Khalili A, Peyrat JM, Abinahed J, Al-Alao O, Al-Ansari A et al (2016) Endoscopic scene labelling and augmentation using intraoperative pulsatile motion and colour appearance cues with preoperative anatomical priors. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11(8):1409–1418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Puerto-Souza GA, Cadeddu JA, Mariottini G-L (2014) Toward long-term and accurate augmented-reality for monocular endoscopic videos. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61(10):2609–2620Google Scholar