Augmented Reality Integration in Gastrointestinal and Bariatric Surgery: A Review of Enhanced Visualizations.
Keywords:
Computer-assisted surgery, Intraoperative navigation, Surgical ergonomics, Spatial perception, Image-guided intervention, Perioperative simulation...Abstract
From open surgeries to MIS was a game changer in both GI and bariatric spheres but presented a number of visualization challenges. Classical 2D laparoscopy involves inherent lack of depth perception and limited spatial orientation that, in its turn, increases the workload of surgeons performing such procedures. Objective: In this narrative literature review, we attempt to analyze the present state, scientific bases and clinical significance of AR, VR and MR applications in GI and bariatric surgeries. We performed a comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed literature regarding advanced approaches in visualization during surgery, including intraoperative navigation, ergonomics, patient safety and clinical outcomes. Advanced technologies allow one to overcome the limitations of classical MIS techniques, providing 3D high-resolution vision with enhanced degrees of freedom. Augmented reality has a huge potential of improving patient care and simplifying complicated surgical procedures by integrating crucial anatomical data into the real world vision. Moreover, VR opens the doors for new highly effective opportunities in perioperative patient education and simulation. Although AR presents a great number of advantages, some intraoperative issues such as soft tissue deformations, peristalsis and hardware delays are still worth mentioning. The advances in visualization technology constitute a paradigm shift in the field of GI and bariatric surgery. As computer vision software and biomechanical modeling techniques develop to cope with the dynamics of soft tissues, AR and 3D robotic systems will certainly be a new normal for the operating theatre of tomorrow.
Downloads
References
1 Fearon KCH, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M, Revhaug A, Dejong CHC, Lassen K, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection. Clin Nutr. 2005 Jun;24(3):466–77. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2005.02.002 PubMed PMID: 15896435.
2. Zhao Z, Powers K, Hu Y, Raleigh M, Pentel P, Zhang C. Engineering of a hybrid nanoparticle-based nicotine nanovaccine as a next-generation immunotherapeutic strategy against nicotine addiction: A focus on hapten density. Biomaterials. 2017 Apr;123:107–17. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.01.038 PubMed PMID: 28167389; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5344186.
3. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Markley S, Sierra R, Heniford BT, Scott DJ. Closing the gap in operative performance between novices and experts: does harder mean better for laparoscopic simulator training? J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Aug;205(2):307–13. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.02.080 PubMed PMID: 17660078.
4. Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D. Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Mar;210(3):306–13. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.10.017 PubMed PMID: 20193893.
5. Meola A, Cutolo F, Carbone M, Cagnazzo F, Ferrari M, Ferrari V. Augmented reality in neurosurgery: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2017 Oct;40(4):537–48. doi:10.1007/s10143-016-0732-9 PubMed PMID: 27154018; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6155988.
6. Pandrangi VC, Gaston B, Appelbaum NP, Albuquerque FC, Levy MM, Larson RA. The Application of Virtual Reality in Patient Education. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Aug;59:184–9. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2019.01.015 PubMed PMID: 31009725.
7. Nicolau S, Soler L, Mutter D, Marescaux J. Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surgical Oncology. 2011 Sep 1;Special Issue: Education for Cancer Surgeons20(3):189–201. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2011.07.002
8. Diana M, Marescaux J. Robotic surgery. Br J Surg. 2015 Jan;102(2):e15-28. doi:10.1002/bjs.9711 PubMed PMID: 25627128.
9. Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, Solnik MJ, Sherman B, Fritch J, et al. Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):3749–61. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4671-2 PubMed PMID: 26675938.
10. Li L, Yang J, Chu Y, Wu W, Xue J, Liang P, et al. A Novel Augmented Reality Navigation System for Endoscopic Sinus and Skull Base Surgery: A Feasibility Study. PLOS ONE. 2016 Jan 12;11(1):e0146996. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146996
11. Wilhelm D, Vogel T, Ostler D, Marahrens N, Kohn N, Koller S, et al. Enhanced Visualization: From Intraoperative Tissue Differentiation to Augmented Reality. Visc Med. 2018 Feb 16;34(1):52–9. doi:10.1159/000485940
12. Deib G, Johnson A, Unberath M, Yu K, Andress S, Qian L, et al. Image guided percutaneous spine procedures using an optical see-through head mounted display: proof of concept and rationale. Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery. 2018 Dec 1;10(12):1187–91. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013649 PubMed PMID: 29848559.
13. Barsom EZ, Graafland M, Schijven MP. Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training. Surg Endosc. 2016 Oct 1;30(10):4174–83. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4800-6
14. Condino S, Turini G, Parchi PD, Viglialoro RM, Piolanti N, Gesi M, et al. How to Build a Patient-Specific Hybrid Simulator for Orthopaedic Open Surgery: Benefits and Limits of Mixed-Reality Using the Microsoft HoloLens. Journal of Healthcare Engineering. 2018;2018(1):5435097. doi:10.1155/2018/5435097
15. Friedman LA, Rapoport JL. Brain development in ADHD. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015 Feb;30:106–11. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2014.11.007 PubMed PMID: 25500059.
16. Collins T, Chauvet P, Debize C, Pizarro D, Bartoli A, Canis M, et al. A System for Augmented Reality Guided Laparoscopic Tumour Resection with Quantitative Ex-vivo User Evaluation. In: Peters T, Yang GZ, Navab N, Mori K, Luo X, Reichl T, et al., editors. Computer-Assisted and Robotic Endoscopy. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 114–26. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54057-3_11
17. Pratt P, Ives M, Lawton G, Simmons J, Radev N, Spyropoulou L, et al. Through the HoloLensTM looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3D vascular models with perforating vessels. Eur Radiol Exp. 2018 Jan 31;2(1):2. doi:10.1186/s41747-017-0033-2
18. Kenngott HG, Wagner M, Nickel F, Wekerle AL, Preukschas A, Apitz M, et al. Computer-assisted abdominal surgery: new technologies. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015 Apr 1;400(3):273–81. doi:10.1007/s00423-015-1289-8
19. Yasuda J, Okamoto T, Onda S, Futagawa Y, Yanaga K, Suzuki N, et al. Novel navigation system by augmented reality technology using a tablet PC for hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2018;14(5):e1921. doi:10.1002/rcs.1921
20. Drozdzal M, Vorontsov E, Chartrand G, Kadoury S, Pal C. The Importance of Skip Connections in Biomedical Image Segmentation. In: Carneiro G, Mateus D, Peter L, Bradley A, Tavares JMRS, Belagiannis V, et al., editors. Deep Learning and Data Labeling for Medical Applications. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 179–87. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46976-8_19
21. Mahmoud N, Collins T, Hostettler A, Soler L, Doignon C, Montiel JMM. Live Tracking and Dense Reconstruction for Handheld Monocular Endoscopy. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2019 Jan;38(1):79–89. doi:10.1109/TMI.2018.2856109
22. Díez Y, Roure F, Lladó X, Salvi J. A Qualitative Review on 3D Coarse Registration Methods. ACM Comput Surv. 2015 Feb 17;47(3):45:1-45:36. doi:10.1145/2692160
23. Nguyen TB, Huang AY, Fikfak V, Dunkin BJ, Garbey M. Image-guided simulation of tissue deformation using a mechanical model on a surgical application. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering. 2017 Jan 25;20(2):206–14. doi:10.1080/10255842.2016.1214269 PubMed PMID: 27454345.
24. Andress S, M.d AJ, Unberath M, Winkler AF, Yu K, Fotouhi J, et al. On-the-fly augmented reality for orthopedic surgery using a multimodal fiducial. JMI. 2018 Jan 26;5(2):021209. doi:10.1117/1.JMI.5.2.021209
25. Guha D, Alotaibi NM, Nguyen N, Gupta S, McFaul C, Yang VXD. Augmented Reality in Neurosurgery: A Review of Current Concepts and Emerging Applications. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. 2017 May;44(3):235–45. doi:10.1017/cjn.2016.443
26. Wittek A, Grosland NM, Joldes GR, Magnotta V, Miller K. From Finite Element Meshes to Clouds of Points: A Review of Methods for Generation of Computational Biomechanics Models for Patient-Specific Applications. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016 Jan 1;44(1):3–15. doi:10.1007/s10439-015-1469-2
27. Freutel M, Schmidt H, Dürselen L, Ignatius A, Galbusera F. Finite element modeling of soft tissues: Material models, tissue interaction and challenges. Clinical Biomechanics. 2014 Apr 1;29(4):363–72. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.01.006
28. Edgcumbe P, Singla R, Pratt P, Schneider C, Nguan C, Rohling R. Follow the light: projector-based augmented reality intracorporeal system for laparoscopic surgery. JMI. 2018 Feb 14;5(2):021216. doi:10.1117/1.JMI.5.2.021216
29. Nimura Y, Qu JD, Hayashi Y, Oda M, Kitasaka T, Hashizume M, et al. Pneumoperitoneum simulation based on mass-spring-damper models for laparoscopic surgical planning. JMI. 2015 Dec 17;2(4):044004. doi:10.1117/1.JMI.2.4.044004
30. Untaroiu CD, Lu YC, Siripurapu SK, Kemper AR. Modeling the biomechanical and injury response of human liver parenchyma under tensile loading. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2015 Jan 1;41:280–91. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.07.006
31. Wild E, Teber D, Schmid D, Simpfendörfer T, Müller M, Baranski AC, et al. Robust augmented reality guidance with fluorescent markers in laparoscopic surgery. Int J CARS. 2016 Jun 1;11(6):899–907. doi:10.1007/s11548-016-1385-4
32. Sui Y, Pan JJ, Qin H, Liu H, Lu Y. Real-time simulation of soft tissue deformation and electrocautery procedures in laparoscopic rectal cancer radical surgery. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2017;13(4):e1827. doi:10.1002/rcs.1827
33. Hoerig C, Reyes W, Fabre L, Ghaboussi J, Insana MF. Imaging spatially varying biomechanical properties with neural networks. In: Medical Imaging 2017: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography . SPIE; 2017. p. 25. Available from: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/10139/1013905/Imaging-spatially-varying-biomechanical-properties-with-neural-networks/10.1117/12.2254331 doi:10.1117/12.2254331
34. Yarbrough DE, La Vella E. Robotic Index Bariatric Surgery. In: Reavis KM, Barrett AM, Kroh MD, editors. The SAGES Manual of Bariatric Surgery . Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 317–25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71282-6_27 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71282-6_27
35. Ronstrom C, Hallbeck S, Lowndes B, Chrouser KL. Surgical Ergonomics. In: Köhler TS, Schwartz B, editors. Surgeons as Educators : A Guide for Academic Development and Teaching Excellence . Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018 . p. 387–417. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64728-9_22 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64728-9_22
36. Jung MK, Hagen ME, Buchs NC, Buehler LH, Morel P. Robotic bariatric surgery: A general review of the current status. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2017;13(4):e1834. doi:10.1002/rcs.1834
37. Schiavo L, Pilone V, Rossetti G, Barbarisi A, Cesaretti M, Iannelli A. A 4-Week Preoperative Ketogenic Micronutrient-Enriched Diet Is Effective in Reducing Body Weight, Left Hepatic Lobe Volume, and Micronutrient Deficiencies in Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: a Prospective Pilot Study. OBES SURG. 2018 Aug 1;28(8):2215–24. doi:10.1007/s11695-018-3145-8
38. Bindal V, Elli EE. Robot-Assisted Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. In: Fong Y, Woo Y, Hyung WJ, Lau C, Strong VE, editors. The SAGES Atlas of Robotic Surgery . Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018 [5]. p. 355–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91045-1_31 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91045-1_31
39. Molina KI, Ricci NA, de Moraes SA, Perracini MR. Virtual reality using games for improving physical functioning in older adults: a systematic review. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2014 Nov 15;11(1):156. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-156
40. Mascagni P, Longo F, Barberio M, Seeliger B, Agnus V, Saccomandi P, et al. New intraoperative imaging technologies: Innovating the surgeon’s eye toward surgical precision. Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2018;118(2):265–82. doi:10.1002/jso.25148
41. Switzer NJ, Karmali S, Gill RS, Sherman V. Revisional Bariatric Surgery. Surgical Clinics. 2016 Aug 1;96(4):827–42. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2016.03.004
42. Ortega CB, Guerron AD, Yoo JS. The Use of Fluorescence Angiography During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy. JSLS. 2018;22(2):e2018.00005. doi:10.4293/JSLS.2018.00005 PubMed PMID: 29950800; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6016860.
43. Cayci HM, Erdogdu UE, Demirci H, Ardic A, Topak NY, Taymur İ. Effect of Health Literacy on Help-seeking Behavior in Morbidly Obese Patients Agreeing to Bariatric Surgery. OBES SURG. 2018 Mar 1;28(3):791–7. doi:10.1007/s11695-017-2882-4
44. Le DN, Le CV, Tromp JG, Nguyen GN. Emerging Technologies for Health and Medicine: Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, Robotics, Industry 4.0. John Wiley & Sons; 2018. 322 p.
45. Jimenez YA, Cumming S, Wang W, Stuart K, Thwaites DI, Lewis SJ. Patient education using virtual reality increases knowledge and positive experience for breast cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Support Care Cancer. 2018 Aug 1;26(8):2879–88. doi:10.1007/s00520-018-4114-4
46. Gram M, Erlenwein J, Petzke F, Falla D, Przemeck M, Emons M i., et al. Prediction of postoperative opioid analgesia using clinical-experimental parameters and electroencephalography. European Journal of Pain. 2017;21(2):264–77. doi:10.1002/ejp.921
47. Pourmand A, Davis S, Marchak A, Whiteside T, Sikka N. Virtual Reality as a Clinical Tool for Pain Management. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2018 Jun 15;22(8):53. doi:10.1007/s11916-018-0708-2
48. Ma MX, Bourke MJ. Digestive Endoscopy | JGES Journal | Wiley Online Library . doi:10.1111/den.12960
49. Alagappan M, Brown JRG, Mori Y, Berzin TM. Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: The future is almost here. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Oct 16;10(10):239–49. doi:10.4253/wjge.v10.i10.239 PubMed PMID: 30364792; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6198310.
50. de Lange T, Halvorsen P, Riegler M. Methodology to develop machine learning algorithms to improve performance in gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec 7;24(45):5057–62. doi:10.3748/wjg.v24.i45.5057 PubMed PMID: 30568383; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6288655.
51. Ichimasa K, Kudo S ei, Mori Y, Misawa M, Matsudaira S, Kouyama Y, et al. Artificial intelligence may help in predicting the need for additional surgery after endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer. Endoscopy. 2018 Mar;50(3):230–40. doi:10.1055/s-0043-122385
52. Cutsem EV, Sagaert X, Topal B, Haustermans K, Prenen H. Gastric cancer. The Lancet. 2016 Nov 26;388(10060):2654–64. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30354-3 PubMed PMID: 27156933.
53. Kanaji S, Suzuki S, Harada H, Nishi M, Yamamoto M, Matsuda T, et al. Comparison of two- and three-dimensional display for performance of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017 May 1;402(3):493–500. doi:10.1007/s00423-017-1574-9
54. Kitz J, Fokas E, Beissbarth T, Ströbel P, Wittekind C, Hartmann A, et al. Association of Plane of Total Mesorectal Excision With Prognosis of Rectal Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2018 Aug 15;153(8):e181607. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1607
55. Luca F, Craigg DK, Senthil M, Selleck MJ, Babcock BD, Reeves ME, et al. Sexual and urinary outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations. Updates Surg. 2018 Sep 1;70(3):415–21. doi:10.1007/s13304-018-0581-x
56. Fencl JL. Guideline Implementation: Surgical Smoke Safety. AORN Journal. 2017 May 1;105(5):488–97. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2017.03.006
57. Robu MR, Ramalhinho J, Thompson S, Gurusamy K, Davidson B, Hawkes D, et al. Global rigid registration of CT to video in laparoscopic liver surgery. Int J CARS. 2018 Jun 1;13(6):947–56. doi:10.1007/s11548-018-1781-z
58. Zisimopoulos O, Flouty E, Luengo I, Giataganas P, Nehme J, Chow A, et al. DeepPhase: Surgical Phase Recognition in CATARACTS Videos. In: Frangi AF, Schnabel JA, Davatzikos C, Alberola-López C, Fichtinger G, editors. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2018. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 265–72. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00937-3_31
59. Maier-Hein L, Vedula SS, Speidel S, Navab N, Kikinis R, Park A, et al. Surgical data science for next-generation interventions. Nat Biomed Eng. 2017 Sep;1(9):691–6. doi:10.1038/s41551-017-0132-7
60. Reinhart MB, Huntington CR, Blair LJ, Heniford BT, Augenstein VA. Indocyanine Green: Historical Context, Current Applications, and Future Considerations. Surg Innov. 2016 Apr 1;23(2):166–75. doi:10.1177/1553350615604053
61. Boni L, David G, Dionigi G, Rausei S, Cassinotti E, Fingerhut A. Indocyanine green-enhanced fluorescence to assess bowel perfusion during laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2016 Jul 1;30(7):2736–42. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4540-z
62. Karampinis I, Ronellenfitsch U, Mertens C, Gerken A, Hetjens S, Post S, et al. Indocyanine green tissue angiography affects anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. A retrospective, case-control study. International Journal of Surgery. 2017 Dec 1;48:210–4. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.11.001
63. Blau R, Epshtein Y, Pisarevsky E, Tiram G, Israeli Dangoor S, Yeini E, et al. Image-guided surgery using near-infrared Turn-ON fluorescent nanoprobes for precise detection of tumor margins. Theranostics. 2018 May 24;8(13):3437–60. doi:10.7150/thno.23853 PubMed PMID: 30026858; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6037036.
64. Powell F, Khaund A. Laparoscopy and laparoscopic surgery. Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine. 2016 Oct 1;26(10):297–303. doi:10.1016/j.ogrm.2016.07.004
65. Sánchez-Margallo FM, Sánchez-Margallo JA. Assessment of Postural Ergonomics and Surgical Performance in Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery Using a Handheld Robotic Device. Surg Innov. 2018 Jun 1;25(3):208–17. doi:10.1177/1553350618759768
66. Lee GI, Lee MR, Clanton T, Sutton E, Park AE, Marohn MR. Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries. Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb 1;28(2):456–65. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-3213-z
67. Yu D, Dural C, Morrow MMB, Yang L, Collins JW, Hallbeck S, et al. Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires. Surg Endosc. 2017 Feb 1;31(2):877–86. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-5047-y
68. Kim E, Shin G. Head Rotation and Muscle Activity When Conducting Document Editing Tasks with a Head-Mounted Display. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2018 Sep 1;62(1):952–5. doi:10.1177/1541931218621219
69. Mocan A, Draghici A. Reducing Ergonomic Strain in Warehouse Logistics Operations by using Wearable Computers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2018 Jan 1;Challenges and Innovation in Management and Entrepreneurship238:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2018.03.001
70. Phan HP, Ngu BH, Yeung AS. Achieving Optimal Best: Instructional Efficiency and the Use of Cognitive Load Theory in Mathematical Problem Solving. Educ Psychol Rev. 2017 Dec 1;29(4):667–92. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9373-3
71. Chu Y, Yang J, Ma S, Ai D, Li W, Song H, et al. Registration and fusion quantification of augmented reality based nasal endoscopic surgery. Medical Image Analysis. 2017 Dec 1;42:241–56. doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.08.003
72. Xu X, Zheng Y, Yao S, Sun G, Xu B, Chen X. A low‐cost multimodal head‐mounted display system for neuroendoscopic surgery . doi:10.1002/brb3.891
73. Gelderblom H, Menge L. The invisible gorilla revisited: using eye tracking to investigate inattentional blindness in interface design. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2018 [5]. p. 1–9. (AVI ’18). Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3206505.3206550 doi:10.1145/3206505.3206550
74. Baldassi S, Kohno T, Roesner F, Tian M. Challenges and New Directions in Augmented Reality, Computer Security, and Neuroscience -- Part 1: Risks to Sensation and Perception . arXiv; 2018 [5]. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10557 doi:10.48550/arXiv.1806.10557
75. Dunn D, Chakravarthula P, Dong Q, Fuchs H. Mitigating vergence-accommodation conflict for near-eye displays via deformable beamsplitters. In: Digital Optics for Immersive Displays . SPIE; 2018 [5]. p. 196. Available from: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/10676/106760U/Mitigating-vergence-accommodation-conflict-for-near-eye-displays-via-deformable/10.1117/12.2314664 doi:10.1117/12.2314664
76. Kramida G. Resolving the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict in Head-Mounted Displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 2016 Jul;22(7):1912–31. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2015.2473855
77. Laessoe U, Abrahamsen S, Zepernick S, Raunsbaek A, Stensen C. Motion sickness and cybersickness – Sensory mismatch. Physiology & Behavior. 2023 Jan 1;258:114015. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2022.114015
78. Rebenitsch L, Owen C. Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Reality. 2016 Jun 1;20(2):101–25. doi:10.1007/s10055-016-0285-9
79. Lang S, Mattheis S, Hasskamp P, Lawson G, Güldner C, Mandapathil M, et al. A european multicenter study evaluating the flex robotic system in transoral robotic surgery. The Laryngoscope. 2017;127(2):391–5. doi:10.1002/lary.26358
80. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, et al. Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017 Oct 24;318(16):1569–80. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7219
81. Gray KD, Moore MD, Elmously A, Bellorin O, Zarnegar R, Dakin G, et al. Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a Complex Patient Population. OBES SURG. 2018 Jul 1;28(7):1852–9. doi:10.1007/s11695-018-3119-x
82. Li K, Zou J, Tang J, Di J, Han X, Zhang P. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. OBES SURG. 2016 Dec 1;26(12):3031–44. doi:10.1007/s11695-016-2408-5
83. van Wezenbeek MR, de Milliano MM, Nienhuijs SW, Friederich P, Gilissen LPL. A Specifically Designed Stent for Anastomotic Leaks after Bariatric Surgery: Experiences in a Tertiary Referral Hospital. OBES SURG. 2016 Aug 1;26(8):1875–80. doi:10.1007/s11695-015-2027-6
84. Nagaya T, Nakamura YA, Choyke PL, Kobayashi H. Fluorescence-Guided Surgery. Front Oncol. 2017 Dec 22;7. doi:10.3389/fonc.2017.00314
85. Griniatsos J. Factors predisposing to conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Annals of Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Surgery. 2018 Feb 10;3(2). doi:10.21037/ales.2018.01.04
86. Trinh BB, Jackson NR, Hauch AT, Hu T, Kandil E. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. JSLS. 2014;18(4):e2014.00187. doi:10.4293/JSLS.2014.00187 PubMed PMID: 25489216; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4254480.
87. Mattheis S, Hasskamp P, Holtmann L, Schäfer C, Geisthoff U, Dominas N, et al. Flex Robotic System in transoral robotic surgery: The first 40 patients. Head & Neck. 2017;39(3):471–5. doi:10.1002/hed.24611
88. Vávra P, Roman J, Zonča P, Ihnát P, Němec M, Kumar J, et al. Recent Development of Augmented Reality in Surgery: A Review. Journal of Healthcare Engineering. 2017;2017(1):4574172. doi:10.1155/2017/4574172
89. Nguyen QC, Kim Y, Kwon H. Optimization of layout and path planning of surgical robotic system. Int J Control Autom Syst. 2017 Feb 1;15(1):375–84. doi:10.1007/s12555-015-0418-z
90. Menger RP, Savardekar AR, Farokhi F, Sin A. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Integration of Robotic Spine Technology in Spine Surgery. Neurospine. 2018 Sep;15(3):216–24. doi:10.14245/ns.1836082.041 PubMed PMID: 30157583; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6226125.
91. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Understanding Costs of Care in the Operating Room. JAMA Surg. 2018 Apr 18;153(4):e176233. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233
92. Higgins RM, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Gould JC. Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc. 2017 Jan 1;31(1):185–92. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4954-2
93. Marescaux J, Diana M. Next step in minimally invasive surgery: hybrid image-guided surgery. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2015 Jan 1;50(1):30–6. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.10.022
94. Wei D, Hsiao C, Johnston SS. Costs of Complications in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery. Value in Health. 2018 May 1;21:S253. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1706
95. Kim JC, Lee JL, Yoon YS, Alotaibi AM, Kim J. Utility of indocyanine-green fluorescent imaging during robot-assisted sphincter-saving surgery on rectal cancer patients. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2016;12(4):710–7. doi:10.1002/rcs.1710
96. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Estimation of the Acquisition and Operating Costs for Robotic Surgery. JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):835–6. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.9219
97. Bamford R, Smith FCT, Coulston J. Current concepts in teaching and learning in surgery. Surgery (Oxford). 2018 Sep 1;36(9):483–90. doi:10.1016/j.mpsur.2018.07.012
98. Bach C, Miernik A, Schönthaler M. Training in robotics: The learning curve and contemporary concepts in training. Arab Journal of Urology. 2014 Mar 1;12(1):58–61. doi:10.1016/j.aju.2013.10.005 PubMed PMID: 26019925.
99. Thomsen ASS, Bach-Holm D, Kjærbo H, Højgaard-Olsen K, Subhi Y, Saleh GM, et al. Operating Room Performance Improves after Proficiency-Based Virtual Reality Cataract Surgery Training. Ophthalmology. 2017 Apr 1;124(4):524–31. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.015
100. Izard SG, Juanes JA, García Peñalvo FJ, Estella JMG, Ledesma MJS, Ruisoto P. Virtual Reality as an Educational and Training Tool for Medicine. J Med Syst. 2018 Feb 1;42(3):50. doi:10.1007/s10916-018-0900-2
101. Li L, Yu F, Shi D, Shi J, Tian Z, Yang J, et al. Application of virtual reality technology in clinical medicine. Am J Transl Res. 2017 Sep 15;9(9):3867–80. PubMed PMID: 28979666; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5622235.
102. Bjerrum F, Thomsen ASS, Nayahangan LJ, Konge L. Surgical simulation: Current practices and future perspectives for technical skills training. Medical Teacher. 2018 Jul 3;40(7):668–75. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2018.1472754 PubMed PMID: 29911477.
103. Bric JD, Lumbard DC, Frelich MJ, Gould JC. Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: a review. Surg Endosc. 2016 Jun 1;30(6):2169–78. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4517-y
104. Asiri A, AlBishi S, AlMadani W, ElMetwally A, Househ M. The Use of Telemedicine in Surgical Care: a Systematic Review. Acta Inform Med. 2018 Oct;26(3):201–6. doi:10.5455/aim.2018.26.201-206 PubMed PMID: 30515013; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6195401.
105. Carbone M, Freschi C, Mascioli S, Ferrari V, Ferrari M. A Wearable Augmented Reality Platform for Telemedicine. In: De Paolis LT, Mongelli A, editors. Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 92–100. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40651-0_8
106. Fuertes-Guiró F, Vitali-Erion E, Rodriguez-Franco A. A program of telementoring in laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies. 2016 Jan 2;25(1):8–14. doi:10.3109/13645706.2015.1083446 PubMed PMID: 26360307.
107. Yu KH, Beam AL, Kohane IS. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nat Biomed Eng. 2018 Oct;2(10):719–31. doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z
108. Loukas C. Surgical Phase Recognition of Short Video Shots Based on Temporal Modeling of Deep Features. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies. 2019 [5]. p. 21–9. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.07853 doi:10.5220/0007352000210029
109. Hung AJ, Chen J, Gill IS. Automated Performance Metrics and Machine Learning Algorithms to Measure Surgeon Performance and Anticipate Clinical Outcomes in Robotic Surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018 Aug 1;153(8):770–1. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1512
110. Morabito R, Cozzolino V, Ding AY, Beijar N, Ott J. Consolidate IoT Edge Computing with Lightweight Virtualization. IEEE Network. 2018 Jan;32(1):102–11. doi:10.1109/MNET.2018.1700175
111. Latif S, Qadir J, Farooq S, Imran MA. How 5G Wireless (and Concomitant Technologies) Will Revolutionize Healthcare? Future Internet. 2017 Dec;9(4):93. doi:10.3390/fi9040093
112. Twinanda AP, Shehata S, Mutter D, Marescaux J, de Mathelin M, Padoy N. EndoNet: A Deep Architecture for Recognition Tasks on Laparoscopic Videos. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2017 Jan;36(1):86–97. doi:10.1109/TMI.2016.2593957
113. Abouelmehdi K, Beni-Hessane A, Khaloufi H. Big healthcare data: preserving security and privacy. J Big Data. 2018 Jan 9;5(1):1. doi:10.1186/s40537-017-0110-7
114. Rumbold JMM, Pierscionek B. The Effect of the General Data Protection Regulation on Medical Research. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2017 Feb 24;19(2):e7108. doi:10.2196/jmir.7108
115. Mesko B. Future Directions of Digital Health. In: Rivas H, Wac K, editors. Digital Health: Scaling Healthcare to the World . Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018 [5]. p. 339–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61446-5_22 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61446-5_22
116. Winfield AFT, Jirotka M. Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2018 Nov 28;376(2133):20180085. doi:10.1098/rsta.2018.0085 PubMed PMID: 30323000; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6191667.
117. Vayena E, Blasimme A, Cohen IG. Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges. PLOS Medicine. 2018 Nov 6;15(11):e1002689. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002689..
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
