Impact of Image Latency and Frame Rate on Simulated Remote Robotic-Assisted Neurovascular Procedures.

Arturo Consoli, Guillaume Charbonnier, Thais Baena Moura, Khaled Gaber, Alexander O'Neill, Thomas R Marotta, Julian Spears, Eileen Liu, Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere, Vitor Mendes Pereira
{"title":"Impact of Image Latency and Frame Rate on Simulated Remote Robotic-Assisted Neurovascular Procedures.","authors":"Arturo Consoli, Guillaume Charbonnier, Thais Baena Moura, Khaled Gaber, Alexander O'Neill, Thomas R Marotta, Julian Spears, Eileen Liu, Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere, Vitor Mendes Pereira","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The implementation of remote procedures represents the ultimate goal of the robotic development in the neurovascular field. Studies from remote cardiac interventions established a maximum latency threshold of 400 ms, however, no data are available for neurovascular procedures. The aim of this study was to define the maximum acceptable latency and minimum refreshment frame rate (RFR) for neuroendovascular procedures in a simulated remote setting.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Using a virtual simulator and an endovascular robotic arm, 7 operators performed 8 simulated aneurysm and stroke treatment interventions (4 manually and 4 robotic-assisted), during which video display of the intervention was randomly altered with different latencies (100, 250, 450, 600, 800 ms) and RFR (10, 15, 25, 30 frames per second [fps]). Operators rated the acceptability of each latency and RFR by using a modified acceptability score (mAS) and an independent observer recorded the number of dangerous uncontrolled movement (DUMs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Maximum acceptable latency (defined as a minimum mAS of 85%) was defined at 100 ms for manually performed procedures and at 250 ms by using robotic-assistance, whereas minimum acceptable RFR was defined at 15 fps. A total of 55 intracranial DUMs were recorded, most of which occurred at latencies ≥450 ms (49/51) and with RFRs of 10 fps (4/4). Time intervals were shorter for manual procedures, although not significantly, and for experienced operators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Latency during simulated neurovascular interventions influences operator performance, judgment, and confidence and maximum thresholds (250 ms) seem to be lower than those previously reported from remote cardiac interventions. In this experimental setting, RFR seemed to have a lower impact in terms of acceptance rates. Latency and RFR represent relevant parameters to define and monitor in remote environments to maximize safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: The implementation of remote procedures represents the ultimate goal of the robotic development in the neurovascular field. Studies from remote cardiac interventions established a maximum latency threshold of 400 ms, however, no data are available for neurovascular procedures. The aim of this study was to define the maximum acceptable latency and minimum refreshment frame rate (RFR) for neuroendovascular procedures in a simulated remote setting.

Materials and methods: Using a virtual simulator and an endovascular robotic arm, 7 operators performed 8 simulated aneurysm and stroke treatment interventions (4 manually and 4 robotic-assisted), during which video display of the intervention was randomly altered with different latencies (100, 250, 450, 600, 800 ms) and RFR (10, 15, 25, 30 frames per second [fps]). Operators rated the acceptability of each latency and RFR by using a modified acceptability score (mAS) and an independent observer recorded the number of dangerous uncontrolled movement (DUMs).

Results: Maximum acceptable latency (defined as a minimum mAS of 85%) was defined at 100 ms for manually performed procedures and at 250 ms by using robotic-assistance, whereas minimum acceptable RFR was defined at 15 fps. A total of 55 intracranial DUMs were recorded, most of which occurred at latencies ≥450 ms (49/51) and with RFRs of 10 fps (4/4). Time intervals were shorter for manual procedures, although not significantly, and for experienced operators.

Conclusions: Latency during simulated neurovascular interventions influences operator performance, judgment, and confidence and maximum thresholds (250 ms) seem to be lower than those previously reported from remote cardiac interventions. In this experimental setting, RFR seemed to have a lower impact in terms of acceptance rates. Latency and RFR represent relevant parameters to define and monitor in remote environments to maximize safety.

图像延迟和帧率对模拟远程机器人辅助神经血管手术的影响。
背景与目的:实现远程手术是神经血管领域机器人发展的最终目标。远程心脏干预的研究确定了最大潜伏期阈值为400 ms,然而,没有神经血管手术的数据。本研究的目的是在模拟的远程环境中确定神经血管内手术的最大可接受延迟和最小刷新帧率(RFR)。材料和方法:使用虚拟模拟器和血管内机械臂,7名操作员进行了8次模拟动脉瘤和中风治疗干预(4次手动和4次机器人辅助),在此过程中,干预的视频显示随机改变,不同的延迟(100、250、450、600、800 ms)和RFR(10、15、25、30帧/秒[fps])。操作人员使用修改后的可接受评分(mAS)对每个延迟和RFR的可接受性进行评分,并由独立观察者记录危险不受控制运动(DUMs)的数量。结果:手动操作的最大可接受延迟(定义为最小mAS为85%)定义为100 ms,使用机器人辅助的最大可接受延迟为250 ms,而最小可接受RFR定义为15 fps。共记录颅内dum 55例,大多数发生在潜伏期≥450 ms (49/51), RFRs为10 fps(4/4)。对于经验丰富的操作人员来说,人工操作的时间间隔更短,尽管不是很明显。结论:模拟神经血管干预期间的潜伏期影响操作员的表现、判断和信心,最大阈值(250 ms)似乎低于先前报道的远程心脏干预。在这个实验环境中,RFR在接受率方面似乎有较低的影响。延迟和RFR表示在远程环境中定义和监控的相关参数,以最大限度地提高安全性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信