Advertisement

Current Medical Science

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 1–6 | Cite as

Application and Prospect of Mixed Reality Technology in Medical Field

  • Hong-zhi Hu
  • Xiao-bo Feng
  • Zeng-wu Shao
  • Mao Xie
  • Song Xu
  • Xing-huo Wu
  • Zhe-wei YeEmail author
Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Mixed reality (MR) technology is a new digital holographic image technology, which appears in the field of graphics after virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology, a new interdisciplinary frontier. As a new generation of technology, MR has attracted great attention of clinicians in recent years. The emergence of MR will bring about revolutionary changes in medical education training, medical research, medical communication, and clinical treatment. At present, MR technology has become the popular frontline information technology for medical applications. With the popularization of digital technology in the medical field, the development prospects of MR are inestimable. The purpose of this review article is to introduce the application of MR technology in the medical field and prospect its trend in the future.

Key words

mixed reality augmented reality virtual reality education surgery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Xiao 2R, Xiong G. Computer-assisted Surgery for Scaphoid Fracture. Curr Med Sci, 2018,38(6):941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tepper OM, Rudy HL, Lefkowitz A, et al. Mixed Reality with HoloLens: Where Virtual Reality Meets Augmented Reality in the Operating Room. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2017,140(5):1066–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Ribaupierre S, Eagleson R. Editorial: Challenges for the usability of AR and VR for clinical neurosurgical procedures. Healthc Technol Lett, 2017,4(5):151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fertleman C, Aubugeau-Williams P, Sher C, et al. A Discussion of Virtual Reality As a New Tool for Training Healthcare Professionals. Front Public Health, 2018,6:44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamacher A, Kim SJ, Cho ST, et al. Application of Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality to Urology. Int Neurourol J, 2016,20(3):172–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barsom EZ, Graafland M, Schijven MP. Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training. Surg Endosc, 2016,30(10):4174–4183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nicola S, Stoicu-Tivadar L. Mixed Reality Supporting Modern Medical Education. Stud Health Technol Inform, 2018,255 242–255 246Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eck U, Winkler A. Display technologies for augmented reality in medical applications. Unfallchirurg, 2018, 121(4):278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bova FJ, Rajon DA, Friedman WA, et al. Mixed-reality simulation for neurosurgical procedures. Neurosurgery, 2013,73(Suppl 1):138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sappenfield JW, Smith WB, Cooper LA, et al. Visualization Improves Supraclavicular Access to the Subclavian Vein in a Mixed Reality Simulator. Anesth Analg, 2018,127(1):83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halic T, Kockara S, Bayrak C, et al. Mixed reality simulation of rasping procedure in artificial cervical disc replacement (ACDR) surgery. BMC Bioinformatics, 2010,11 (Suppl 6):S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hooten KG, Lister JR, Lombard G, et al. Mixed reality ventriculostomy simulation: experience in neurosurgical residency. Neurosurgery, 2014,10 Suppl 4: 576–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robinson AR 3rd, Gravenstein N, Cooper LA, et al. A mixed-reality part-task trainer for subclavian venous access. Simul Healthc, 2014,9(1):56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kotranza A, Lind DS, Lok B. Real-time evaluation and visualization of learner performance in a mixed-reality environment for clinical breast examination. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 2012,18(7):1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shen Y, Hananel D, Zhao Z, et al. A New Design for Airway Management Training with Mixed Reality and High Fidelity Modeling. Stud Health Technol Inform, 2016,220:359–362Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stefan P, Pfandler M, Wucherer P, et al. Team training and assessment in mixed reality-based simulated operating room: Current state of research in the field of simulation in spine surgery exemplified by the ATMEOS project. Unfallchirurg, 2018,121(4):271–277Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu K, Marino NE, Russell D, et al. Use of Short Message Service and Smartphone Applications in the Management of Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review. Telemed J E Health, 2018,24(6):406–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rhee T, Petikam L, Allen B, et al. MR360: Mixed Reality Rendering for 360 degrees Panoramic Videos. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 2017,23(4):1379–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu X, Liu R, Yu J, et al. Mixed Reality Technology Launches in Orthopedic Surgery for Comprehensive Preoperative Management of Complicated Cervical Fractures. Surg Innov, 2018,25(4):421–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heuts S, Sardari Nia P, Maessen JG. Preoperative planning of thoracic surgery with use of threedimensional reconstruction, rapid prototyping, simulation and virtual navigation. J Vis Surg, 2016,2:77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu X, Liu R, Yu J, et al. Mixed Reality Technology-Assisted Orthopedics Surgery Navigation. Surg Innov, 2018,25(3):304–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sauer IM, Queisner M, Tang P, et al. Mixed Reality in Visceral Surgery: Development of a Suitable Workflow and Evaluation of Intraoperative Use-cases. Ann Surg, 2017,266(5):706–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mert A, Kiesel B, Wohrer A, et al. Introduction of a standardized multimodality image protocol for navigation-guided surgery of suspected low-grade gliomas. Neurosurg Focus, 2015,38(1):E4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linte CA, Davenport KP, Cleary K, et al. On mixed reality environments for minimally invasive therapy guidance: systems architecture, successes and challenges in their implementation from laboratory to clinic. Comput Med Imaging Graph, 2013,37(2):83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee SC, Fuerst B, Tateno K, et al. Multi-modal imaging, model-based tracking, and mixed reality visualisation for orthopaedic surgery. Healthc Technol Lett, 2017,4(5):168–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fischer M, Fuerst B, Lee SC, et al. Preclinical usability study of multiple augmented reality concepts for K-wire placement. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 2016,11(6):1007–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Incekara F, Smits M, Dirven C, et al. Clinical Feasibility of a Wearable Mixed-Reality Device in Neurosurgery. World Neurosurg, 2018,118:e422–e427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang S, Parsons M, Stone-McLean J, et al. Augmented Reality as a Telemedicine Platform for Remote Procedural Training. Sensors (Basel), 2017,17(10): pii: E2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yetisen AK, Martinez-Hurtado JL, Unal B, et al. Wearables in Medicine. Adv Mater, 2018:e1706910Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Appelbaum L, Mahgerefteh SY, Sosna J, et al. Imageguided fusion and navigation: applications in tumor ablation. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol, 2013,16(4):287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yoshino M, Saito T, Kin T, et al. A Microscopic Optically Tracking Navigation System That Uses Highresolution 3D Computer Graphics. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo), 2015,55(8):674–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beal MD, Delagramaticas D, Fitz D. Improving outcomes in total knee arthroplasty-do navigation or customized implants have a role? J Orthop Surg Res, 2016,11(1):60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang W, Takigawa T, Wu Y, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion in posterior scoliosis surgery: a comparison between intraoperative navigation and preoperative navigation techniques. Eur Spine J, 2017,26(6):1756–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li L, Yang J, Chu Y, et al. A Novel Augmented Reality Navigation System for Endoscopic Sinus and Skull Base Surgery: A Feasibility Study. PLoS One, 2016,11(1):e0146996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brigham TJ. Reality Check: Basics of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality. Med Ref Serv Q, 2017,36(2):171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hanna MG, Ahmed I, Nine J, et al. Augmented Reality Technology Using Microsoft HoloLens in Anatomic Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2018,142(5):638–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen AD, Lin SJ. Discussion: Mixed Reality with HoloLens: Where Virtual Reality Meets Augmented Reality in the Operating Room. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2017,140(5):1071–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Valdes Olmos RA, Vidal-Sicart S, Giammarile F, et al. The GOSTT concept and hybrid mixed/virtual/ augmented reality environment radioguided surgery. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2014,58(2):207–215Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee C, Rincon GA, Meyer G, et al. The effects of visual realism on search tasks in mixed reality simulation. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 2013,19(4):547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ferrari V, Megali G, Troia E, et al. A 3-D mixed-reality system for stereoscopic visualization of medical dataset. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2009,56(11):2627–2633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Martelli N, Serrano C, van den Brink H, et al. Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: A systematic review. Surgery, 2016,159(6):1485–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong-zhi Hu
    • 1
  • Xiao-bo Feng
    • 1
  • Zeng-wu Shao
    • 1
  • Mao Xie
    • 1
  • Song Xu
    • 1
  • Xing-huo Wu
    • 1
  • Zhe-wei Ye
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations