A calibration-free workflow for image-based mixed reality navigation of total shoulder arthroplasty

Gu, Wenhao; Shah, Kinjal; Knopf, Jonathan; Josewski, Chad; Unberath, Mathias

doi:10.1080/21681163.2021.2009378

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For OST-HMD-based overlay, the HoloLens 1 was the most frequently mentioned device, followed by the HoloLens 2 and Magic Leap 1. Several groups reported successful guidance based on the OST-HMD camera and surface registration with markers [ 46 , 47 , 74 , 86 ] and point registration based on feature matching [ 48 , 50 , 87 , 99 ]. The final overlay strategy discussed is manual placement of virtual content; in this case it was up to either the surgeon [ 72 , 81 ] or a secondary user [ 55 , 74 ] to ensure comfortable placement of virtual content.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Challenges in perception of virtually augmented elements can be attributed to a number of factors, including incorrect IPD estimation [ 40 ], incorrect or unaccounted for per-user display calibration [ 33 , 97 ], display limitations due to vergence-accommodation [ 10 ], misregistration of virtual content due to failed registration [ 106 ], and limitations of depth understanding of virtually augmented content [ 107 ]. Perceptual limitations contributed to additional errors in the stability of calibration during ultrasound image-guided robot cervical pedicle screw placement [ 93 ], with navigation during total shoulder arthroscopy [ 99 ], and with marker-less tracking for guidance in head and neck carcinoma imaging [ 75 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By leveraging the stereo infrared cameras on the HoloLens 2 and an extended Kalman filter for pose prediction smoothing, it was demonstrated that the contribution of occlusion to loss of tracking could be reduced [ 60 ]. Further, with marker-less approaches there lies the potential to remove the requirement of the complex setup and calibration involved in traditional marker-based navigation strategies [ 76 , 99 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Augmenting Performance: A Systematic Review of Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Displays in Surgery

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a systematic review of recent literature to understand the current challenges in the use of optical see-through head-mounted displays (OST-HMDs) for augmented reality (AR) assisted surgery. Using Google Scholar, 57 relevant articles from 1 January 2021 through 18 March 2022 were identified. Selected articles were then categorized based on a taxonomy that described the required components of an effective AR-based navigation system: data, processing, overlay, view, and validation. Our findings indicated a focus on orthopedic (n=20) and maxillofacial surgeries (n=8). For preoperative input data, computed tomography (CT) (n=34), and surface rendered models (n=39) were most commonly used to represent image information. Virtual content was commonly directly superimposed with the target site (n=47); this was achieved by surface tracking of fiducials (n=30), external tracking (n=16), or manual placement (n=11). Microsoft HoloLens devices (n=24 in 2021, n=7 in 2022) were the most frequently used OST-HMDs; gestures and/or voice (n=32) served as the preferred interaction paradigm. Though promising system accuracy in the order of 2–5 mm has been demonstrated in phantom models, several human factors and technical challenges—perception, ease of use, context, interaction, and occlusion—remain to be addressed prior to widespread adoption of OST-HMD led surgical navigation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Augmenting Performance: A Systematic Review of Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Displays in Surgery

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is particularly important as prior publications have described the use of a diversity of different non-standard custom phantoms and protocols, which were not verified or validated by a recognized consensus body standard, to determine the accuracy and precision of HMD-based surgical systems. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] This is the first known study that systematically assesses the accuracy of a HMD optical tracking system using the FDA recognized ASTM-F2554-18 consensus standard. This internationally and FDA recognized standard, was specifically developed and designed to determine the accuracy and repeatability of tracking systems to locate individual points in real world space.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, literature review of such systems reveals a wide range of mean registration errors ranging from .76 mm to 8.22 mm. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Moreover, these different accuracy and performance assessments have utilized a variety of non-standardized custom measurement protocols and reporting practices, which prevents direct intersystem comparisons and generalizability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed Reality Surgical Navigation System; Positional Accuracy Based on Food and Drug Administration Standard

Morley,

Arreola,

Qian

et al. 2023

Surg Innov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Computer assisted surgical navigation systems are designed to improve outcomes by providing clinicians with procedural guidance information. The use of new technologies, such as mixed reality, offers the potential for more intuitive, efficient, and accurate procedural guidance. The goal of this study is to assess the positional accuracy and consistency of a clinical mixed reality system that utilizes commercially available wireless head-mounted displays (HMDs), custom software, and localization instruments. Methods Independent teams using the second-generation Microsoft HoloLens© hardware, Medivis SurgicalAR© software, and localization instruments, tested the accuracy of the combined system at different institutions, times, and locations. The ASTM F2554-18 consensus standard for computer-assisted surgical systems, as recognized by the U.S. FDA, was utilized to measure the performance. 288 tests were performed. Results The system demonstrated consistent results, with an average accuracy performance that was better than one millimeter (.75 ± SD .37 mm). Conclusion Independently acquired positional tracking accuracies exceed conventional in-market surgical navigation tracking systems and FDA standards. Importantly, the performance was achieved at two different institutions, using an international testing standard, and with a system that included a commercially available off-the-shelf wireless head mounted display and software.

show abstract

The impact of visualization paradigms on the detectability of spatial misalignment in mixed reality surgical guidance

Martin-Gomez

Cho

et al. 2022

Int J CARS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A calibration-free workflow for image-based mixed reality navigation of total shoulder arthroplasty

Cited by 8 publications

References 45 publications

Augmenting Performance: A Systematic Review of Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Displays in Surgery

Augmenting Performance: A Systematic Review of Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Displays in Surgery

Mixed Reality Surgical Navigation System; Positional Accuracy Based on Food and Drug Administration Standard

The impact of visualization paradigms on the detectability of spatial misalignment in mixed reality surgical guidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About