The use of a head-mounted display for visualization in neuroendoscopy

Lindert, Erik van; Grotenhuis, J.A.; Beems, Tjemme

doi:10.1080/10929080500165476

Cited by 14 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Optical see-through HMDs allow the user to view the real world through a semitransparent mirror, thereby enabling the superimposition of electronic text or images over the user's natural view, while video see-through HMDs feature non-transparent screens that instead display a video feed of a real-world scene, captured with an external camera, in front of the user's eyes 88. The use of video HMDs was described in all 20 articles pertaining to MIS where HMDs provided users with an individualised endoscopic display 44 49 51–54 56–58 64 65 69 72 80 81 83–87…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirty-three of the 45 articles (73%) describing the use of HMDs were primary research articles, 19 of which were exploratory studies carried out in clinical settings 47 49 51 52 55–58 65 66 69 71 80 81 83–87. Device design and methodology varied significantly across these studies, but the results overall demonstrated the feasibility of HMDs in the various specified clinical environments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearable technology is an emerging manifestation of consumer electronics that has the potential to revolutionise healthcare. The novel hands-free design and clinically relevant functionalities of various wearable devices hold significant promise for surgery, but the breadth and quality of evidence supporting clinical implementation in the operating room remains unclear. The objective of this article is to provide an objective overview of the available literature regarding the use of wearable technology in surgery, both in clinical and simulated experimental settings. A systematic review examining the use of wearable technology in surgery was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases from inception through 15 January 2016. Three authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles and those that satisfied the defined inclusion criteria were selected for a full-text review. A total of 87 publications were included in this review. These articles predominantly described the use of Google Glass, GoPro or customised head-mounted displays (HMDs) in a wide range of intraoperative clinical settings. The included articles were categorised based on the highlighted areas of clinical impact, with the majority (56) discussing various applications for enhancing intraoperative safety and efficiency. Almost all articles cited technological limitations and privacy concerns as serious barriers to the implementation of wearable technology in the operating room. Evidence in the available literature regarding the use of wearable technology in the operating room shows promise, but high-quality clinical trials are needed to fully understand their clinical impact. Further, it will be essential to address existing technological limitations, develop healthcare-specific applications, and integrate privacy-protecting safeguards before it may be feasible for wearable devices to seamlessly integrate into the operative environment.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The endoscopic picture is projected onto LCD screens from the HMD with a resolution of 800 × 600 pixels [6]. The instruments used are principally the same as with the microsurgical technique.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations of endonasal anatomy: relevance for the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETA) to the pituitary is performed by ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgeons in collaboration with neurosurgeons but also by neurosurgeons alone even though neurosurgeons have not been trained in rhinological surgery.PurposeTo register the frequency of endonasal anatomical variations and to evaluate whether these variations hinder the progress of EETA and require extra rhinological surgical skills.MethodsA prospective cohort study of 185 consecutive patients receiving an EETA through a binostril approach was performed. All anatomical endonasal variations were noted and the relevance for the progress of surgery evaluated.ResultsIn 48% of patients, anatomical variations were recognized, the majority of which were spinae septi and septum deviations. In 5% of patients, the planned binostril approach had to be converted into a mononostril approach; whereas in 18% of patients with an anatomical variation, a correction had to be performed. There was no difference between the ENT surgeon and the neurosurgeon performing the approach. Complications related to the endonasal phase of the surgery occurred in 3.8%. Fluoroscopy or electromagnetic navigation has been used during 6.5% of the surgeries.ConclusionAlthough endonasal anatomical variations are frequent, they do not pose a relevant obstacle for EETA.

show abstract

“…However, in head-up microscopy, a surgeon's head and eyes are directed toward a monitor, which causes an eye-hand coordination mismatch and requires an uncomfortable posture for surgeons. Head-mounted displays (HMDs) have been adopted to solve the above mentioned drawbacks in the case of endoscopy and laparoscopy, which use the same kinds of 3D monitors [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. The use of HMD helps eliminate these problems by delivering optical information directly to the surgeon's eyes, independent of the head and body position and the position of the sources of the images.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of proposed HMDs have inadequate resolution, and they are bulky, cave-like, and heavy [6][7][8][9][10]. Although, a higher resolution HMD have recently been proposed for endoscopy, it has a fully opaque and closed, non-see-through configuration [11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%