An Augmented Reality Endoscope System for Ureter Position Detection

A High-Speed Hyperspectral Laparoscopic Imaging System

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has expanded broadly in the field of abdominal and pelvic surgery. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery has improved surgeon ergonomics, instrument precision, operative time, and postoperative recovery across various abdominal procedures. The goal of this study is to establish the feasibility of implementing high-speed hyperspectral imaging into a standard laparoscopic setup and exploring its benefit to common intracorporeal procedures. A hyperspectral laparoscopic imaging system was constructed using a customized hyperspectral camera alongside a standard rigid laparoscope and was validated for both spectral and spatial accuracy. Demosaicing methods were investigated for improved full-resolution visualization. Hyperspectral cameras with different spectral ranges were considered and compared with one another alongside two different light sources to determine the most effective configuration. Finally, different porcine tissues were imaged ex-vivo to test the capabilities of the system and spectral footprints of the various tissues were extracted. The tissue was also imaged in a phantom to simulate the system's use in MIS. The results demonstrated a hyperspectral laparoscopic imaging system that could provide quantitative, diagnostic information while not disrupting normal workflow nor adding excessive weight to the laparoscopic setup. The high-speed hyperspectral laparoscopic imaging system can have immediate applications in image-guided surgery.

"Augmented reality" applications in urology: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Augmented reality (AR) applied to surgical procedures refers to the superimposition of preoperative or intra-operative images onto the operative field. Augmented reality has been increasingly used in myriad surgical specialties including Urology. The following study reviews advances in the use of AR for improvements in urologic outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We identified all descriptive, validity, prospective randomized/nonrandomized trials and retrospective comparative/noncomparative studies about the use of AR in Urology up until March 2021. The MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were used for literature search. We conducted the study selection according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analysis statement) guidelines. We limited included studies to only those using AR, excluding all that used virtual reality technology.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 60 studies were identified and included in the present analysis. Overall, 19 studies were descriptive/validity/phantom studies for specific AR methodologies, 4 studies were case reports, and 37 studies included clinical prospective/retrospective comparative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances in AR have led to increasing registration accuracy as well as increased ability to identify anatomic landmarks and improve outcomes during Urologic procedures such as RARP and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

Mixed reality applications in urology: Requirements and future potential

Background

Mixed reality (MR), the computer-supported augmentation of a real environment with virtual elements, becomes ever more relevant in the medical domain, especially in urology, ranging from education and training over surgeries. We aimed to review existing MR technologies and their applications in urology.

Methods

A non-systematic review of current literature was performed using the PubMed-Medline database using the medical subject headings (MeSH) term “mixed reality”, combined with one of the following terms: “virtual reality”, “augmented reality”, ‘’urology’’ and “augmented virtuality”. The relevant studies were utilized.

Results

MR applications such as MR guided systems, immersive VR headsets, AR models, MR-simulated ureteroscopy and smart glasses have enormous potential in education, training and surgical interventions of urology. Medical students, urology residents and inexperienced urologists can gain experience thanks to MR technologies. MR applications are also used in patient education before interventions.

Conclusions

For surgical support, the achievable accuracy is often not sufficient. The main challenges are the non-rigid nature of the genitourinary organs, intraoperative data acquisition, online and multimodal registration and calibration of devices. However, the progress made in recent years is tremendous in all respects and the gap is constantly shrinking.

∙

MR, including AV and AR, is an intriguing technology with tremendous potential in urology field.

∙The main challenges lie in intraoperative data acquisition, online and multimodal registration and calibration of devices and data, appropriate display hardware, as well as cooperative devices and tools in the operation theatres.

∙Medical experts should feel encouraged to experience MR solutions and to communicate their specific needs and effects they aim at.

A multidisciplinary approach to urinary system iatrogenic injuries

INTRODUCTION

Urinary system iatrogenic injuries appear because of urological, obstetric-gynecological, and surgical manipulations in the retroperitoneal space, pelvis, or perineum. The purpose of this research was to analyze and obtain knowledge about the issue of iatrogenic injuries, to apply injury prevention algorithms, and to assess multidisciplinary perspectives in modern surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The research was interdisciplinary and consisted of several modules: a prospective, single-centre study of urinary system iatrogenic injuries (476 patients) along with four interregional and international procedural types of research.

RESULTS

The analysis results indicate an extremely high significance of urinary system injuries evoking numerous negative consequences that are hard to eliminate. A comparative assessment of interdisciplinary interaction demonstrates the more effective interpretation of examination results, more comprehensive and credible clinical diagnosis, more qualitative evaluation of a patient's condition, more effective choice of initial treatment policy, and more satisfactory treatment in patients' opinion. The research allowed for the identification of a typical procedural mistake in the urethral catheter setting causing a high risk of urethra injuries followed by urethra strictures or consecutive infections of the urinary tract.

CONCLUSIONS

More complicated treatment procedures cause a higher probability of urinary system iatrogenic injuries. The absence of unified algorithms and typical procedural mistakes cause such incidents. A partial solution to this issue could be found in a more profound interdisciplinary interaction in all treatment phases as well as in identifying and eliminating procedural mistakes.

Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: the evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic literature review on the clinical impact of augmented reality (AR) for urological interventions.

METHODS

As of June 21, 2018, systematic literature review was performed via Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018102194). Only full text articles in English were included, without time restrictions. Articles were considered if they reported on the use of AR during urological intervention and the impact on the surgical outcomes. The risk of bias and the quality of each study included were independently assessed using the standard Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I).

RESULTS

131 articles were identified. 102 remained after duplicate removal and were critically reviewed for evidence synthesis. 20 studies reporting on the outcomes of the use of AR during urological interventions in a clinical setting were considered. Given the mostly non-comparative design of the studies identified, the evidence synthesis was performed in a descriptive and narrative manner. Only one comparative study was found, with the remaining 19 items being single-arm observational studies. Based on the existing evidence, we are unable to state that AR improves the outcomes of urological interventions. The major limitation of AR-assisted surgery is inaccuracy in registration, translating into a poor navigation precision.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is limited evidence showing superior therapeutic benefits of AR-guided surgery when compared with the conventional surgical approach to the respective disease.