Clinical acceptance of advanced visualization methods: a comparison study of 3D-print, virtual reality glasses, and 3D-display

Abstract

Background To compare different methods of three-dimensional representations, namely 3D-Print, Virtual Reality (VR)-Glasses and 3D-Display regarding the understanding of the pathology, accuracy of details, quality of the anatomical representation and technical operability and assessment of possible change in treatment in different disciplines and levels of professional experience. Methods Interviews were conducted with twenty physicians from the disciplines of cardiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthopedic surgery, and radiology between 2018 and 2020 at the University Hospital of Basel. They were all presented with three different three-dimensional clinical cases derived from CT data from their area of expertise, one case for each method. During this, the physicians were asked for their feedback written down on a pencil and paper questionnaire. Results Concerning the understanding of the pathology and quality of the anatomical representation, VR-Glasses were rated best in three out of four disciplines and two out of three levels of professional experience. Regarding the accuracy of details, 3D-Display was rated best in three out of four disciplines and all levels of professional experience. As to operability, 3D-Display was consistently rated best in all levels of professional experience and all disciplines. Possible change in treatment was reported using 3D-Print in 33%, VR-Glasses in 44%, and 3D-Display in 33% of participants. Physicians with a professional experience of more than ten years reported no change in treatment using any method. Conclusions 3D-Print, VR-Glasses, and 3D-Displays are very well accepted, and a relevant percentage of participants with less than ten years of professional work experience could imagine a possible change in treatment using any of these three-dimensional methods. Our findings challenge scientists, technicians, and physicians to further develop these methods to improve the three-dimensional understanding of pathologies and to add value to the education of young and inexperienced physicians.

A workflow to visualize vertebrate eyes in 3D

“…3D visualization of human organs or body parts are already used in disciplines such as neurosurgery [ 23 ], orthopedic surgery [ 24 ], dental and maxillofacial surgery [ 25 ] for navigation, implant positioning, and also for individualized fabrication of custom designed implants. These systems are usually based on 3D data sets provided by Computer Tomography scanning techniques, Magnetic Resonance Imaging data sets, and other imaging methods such as ultrasound.…”

Personalized 3D-printed cranial implants for complex cranioplasty using open-source software

“…Several studies that have been published show the advantages of using advanced visualization, such as extended reality and 3D printing, in preoperative planning and understanding three-dimensional anatomy compared to conventional imaging (CT or MRI). [ 16 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 44 ] Therefore, the goal of radiologists is to offer such an opportunity to surgeons so that they all together ensure the best possible patient care, especially for complex cases.…”

Current Trends in the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Jaw following Ablative Surgery

“…There are currently two main streams of intraoperative AR, one with a monitor presenting the patient’s data with the 3D model overlaid, and the other with a see-through head-mounted display where the real world and the 3D projected image are overlaid and viewed by the surgeon through the glasses, e.g., HoloLens (Microsoft Corporation; Redmond, WA, USA). The different levels of clinical acceptance for these techniques were investigated through surgeons’ perspectives [ 55 ].…”