HoloDIEP-Faster and More Accurate Intraoperative DIEA Perforator Mapping Using a Novel Mixed Reality Tool.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Fabian N Necker, David J Cholok, Marc J Fischer, Mohammed S Shaheen, Kyle Gifford, Michael Januszyk, Christoph W Leuze, Michael Scholz, Bruce L Daniel, Arash Momeni
{"title":"HoloDIEP-Faster and More Accurate Intraoperative DIEA Perforator Mapping Using a Novel Mixed Reality Tool.","authors":"Fabian N Necker, David J Cholok, Marc J Fischer, Mohammed S Shaheen, Kyle Gifford, Michael Januszyk, Christoph W Leuze, Michael Scholz, Bruce L Daniel, Arash Momeni","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1788548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> Microsurgical breast reconstruction using abdominal tissue is a complex procedure, in part, due to variable vascular/perforator anatomy. Preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) has mitigated this challenge to some degree; yet it continues to pose certain challenges. The ability to map perforators with Mixed Reality has been demonstrated in case studies, but its accuracy has not been studied intraoperatively. Here, we compare the accuracy of \"HoloDIEP\" in identifying perforator location (vs. Doppler ultrasound) by using holographic 3D models derived from preoperative CTA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> Using a custom application on HoloLens, the deep inferior epigastric artery vascular tree was traced in 15 patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction. Perforator markings were compared against the 3D model in a coordinate system centered on the umbilicus. Holographic- and Doppler-identified markings were compared using a perspective-corrected photo technique against the 3D model along with measurement of duration of perforator mapping for each technique.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Vascular points in HoloDIEP skin markings were -0.97 ± 6.2 mm (perforators: -0.62 ± 6.13 mm) away from 3D-model ground-truth in radial length from the umbilicus at a true distance of 10.81 ± 6.14 mm (perforators: 11.40 ± 6.15 mm). Absolute difference in radial distance was twice as high for Doppler markings compared with Holo-markings (9.71 ± 6.16 and 4.02 ± 3.20 mm, respectively). Only in half of all cases (7/14), more than 50% of the Doppler-identified points were reasonably close (<30 mm) to 3D-model ground-truth. HoloDIEP was twice as fast as Doppler ultrasound (76.9s vs. 150.4 s per abdomen).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> HoloDIEP allows for faster and more accurate intraoperative perforator mapping than Doppler ultrasound.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1788548","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  Microsurgical breast reconstruction using abdominal tissue is a complex procedure, in part, due to variable vascular/perforator anatomy. Preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) has mitigated this challenge to some degree; yet it continues to pose certain challenges. The ability to map perforators with Mixed Reality has been demonstrated in case studies, but its accuracy has not been studied intraoperatively. Here, we compare the accuracy of "HoloDIEP" in identifying perforator location (vs. Doppler ultrasound) by using holographic 3D models derived from preoperative CTA.

Methods:  Using a custom application on HoloLens, the deep inferior epigastric artery vascular tree was traced in 15 patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction. Perforator markings were compared against the 3D model in a coordinate system centered on the umbilicus. Holographic- and Doppler-identified markings were compared using a perspective-corrected photo technique against the 3D model along with measurement of duration of perforator mapping for each technique.

Results:  Vascular points in HoloDIEP skin markings were -0.97 ± 6.2 mm (perforators: -0.62 ± 6.13 mm) away from 3D-model ground-truth in radial length from the umbilicus at a true distance of 10.81 ± 6.14 mm (perforators: 11.40 ± 6.15 mm). Absolute difference in radial distance was twice as high for Doppler markings compared with Holo-markings (9.71 ± 6.16 and 4.02 ± 3.20 mm, respectively). Only in half of all cases (7/14), more than 50% of the Doppler-identified points were reasonably close (<30 mm) to 3D-model ground-truth. HoloDIEP was twice as fast as Doppler ultrasound (76.9s vs. 150.4 s per abdomen).

Conclusion:  HoloDIEP allows for faster and more accurate intraoperative perforator mapping than Doppler ultrasound.

HoloDIEP-使用新型混合现实工具更快、更准确地绘制术中 DIEA 穿孔图。
背景:使用腹部组织进行显微外科乳房重建是一项复杂的手术,部分原因是血管/穿孔器解剖结构多变。术前计算机断层扫描血管造影术(CTA)在一定程度上缓解了这一难题,但仍存在一些挑战。利用混合现实技术绘制穿孔器的能力已在病例研究中得到证实,但其准确性尚未在术中得到研究。在此,我们比较了 "HoloDIEP "使用术前 CTA 导出的全息三维模型识别穿孔器位置(与多普勒超声相比)的准确性:方法:使用 HoloLens 上的定制应用程序,对 15 名接受显微外科乳房重建术的患者的下腹深动脉血管树进行追踪。在以脐为中心的坐标系中,将穿孔器标记与三维模型进行比较。使用透视校正照片技术将全息和多普勒识别的标记与三维模型进行比较,同时测量每种技术的穿孔器绘图持续时间:HoloDIEP皮肤标记中的血管点距三维模型地面真实值的径向长度为-0.97 ± 6.2 mm(穿孔器:-0.62 ± 6.13 mm),距脐部的真实距离为10.81 ± 6.14 mm(穿孔器:11.40 ± 6.15 mm)。与 Holo 标记相比,多普勒标记的径向距离绝对差值是 Holo 标记的两倍(分别为 9.71 ± 6.16 毫米和 4.02 ± 3.20 毫米)。只有在一半的病例中(7/14),50% 以上的多普勒识别点距离相当接近(结论:HoloDIEP 可以更快地确定桡动脉的位置:与多普勒超声相比,HoloDIEP 可以更快、更准确地绘制术中穿孔器图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
80
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal that provides an international forum for the publication of articles focusing on reconstructive microsurgery and complex reconstructive surgery. The journal was originally established in 1984 for the microsurgical community to publish and share academic papers. The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery provides the latest in original research spanning basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations. Review papers cover current topics in complex reconstruction and microsurgery. In addition, special sections discuss new technologies, innovations, materials, and significant problem cases. The journal welcomes controversial topics, editorial comments, book reviews, and letters to the Editor, in order to complete the balanced spectrum of information available in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. All articles undergo stringent peer review by international experts in the specialty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信