Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A radiation-free mixed-reality training environment and assessment concept for C-arm-based surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The discrepancy of continuously decreasing opportunities for clinical training and assessment and the increasing complexity of interventions in surgery has led to the development of different training and assessment options like anatomical models, computer-based simulators or cadaver trainings. However, trainees, following training, assessment and ultimately performing patient treatment, still face a steep learning curve.

Methods

To address this problem for C-arm-based surgery, we introduce a realistic radiation-free simulation system that combines patient-based 3D printed anatomy and simulated X-ray imaging using a physical C-arm. To explore the fidelity and usefulness of the proposed mixed-reality system for training and assessment, we conducted a user study with six surgical experts performing a facet joint injection on the simulator.

Results

In a technical evaluation, we show that our system simulates X-ray images accurately with an RMSE of 1.85 mm compared to real X-ray imaging. The participants expressed agreement with the overall realism of the simulation, the usefulness of the system for assessment and strong agreement with the usefulness of such a mixed-reality system for training of novices and experts. In a quantitative analysis, we furthermore evaluated the suitability of the system for the assessment of surgical skills and gather preliminary evidence for validity.

Conclusion

The proposed mixed-reality simulation system facilitates a transition to C-arm-based surgery and has the potential to complement or even replace large parts of cadaver training, to provide a safe assessment environment and to reduce the risk for errors when proceeding to patient treatment. We propose an assessment concept and outline the steps necessary to expand the system into a test instrument that provides reliable and justified assessments scores indicative of surgical proficiency with sufficient evidence for validity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peters TM, Linte CA (2016) Image-guided interventions and computer-integrated therapy: Quo vadis? Med Image Anal 33:56–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Härtl R, Lam KS, Wang J, Korge A, Kandziora F, Audige L (2013) Worldwide survey on the use of navigation in spine surgery. World Neurosurg 79(1):162–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bott OJ, Teistler M, Duwenkamp C, Wagner M, Marschollek M, Plischke M, Raab BW, Stürmer KM, Pretschner DP, Dresing K (2008) virtX—evaluation of a computer-based training system for mobile C-arm systems in trauma and orthopedic surgery. Methods Inf Med 47(3):270–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ghaderi I, Manji F, Park YS, Juul D, Ott M, Harris I, Farrell TM (2015) Technical skills assessment toolbox: a review using the unitary framework of validity. Ann Surg 261(2):251–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmed N, Devitt KS, Keshet I, Spicer J, Imrie K, Feldman L, Cools-Lartigue J, Kayssi A, Lipsman N, Elmi M (2014) A systematic review of the effects of resident duty hour restrictions in surgery: impact on resident wellness, training, and patient outcomes. Ann Surg 259(6):1041–1053

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gong RH, Jenkins B, Sze RW, Yaniv Z (2014) A cost effective and high fidelity fluoroscopy simulator using the image-guided surgery toolkit (IGSTK). In: SPIE medical imaging, p 903618

  7. Bott OJ, Dresing K, Wagner M, Raab BW, Teistler M (2011) Informatics in radiology: use of a C-arm fluoroscopy simulator to support training in intraoperative radiography. Radiographics 31(3):E65–E75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wucherer P, Stefan P, Abhari K, Fallavollita P, Weigl M, Lazarovici M, Winkler A, Weidert S, Peters T, de Ribaupierre S, Eagleson R, Navab N (2015) Vertebroplasty performance on simulator for 19 surgeons using hierarchical task analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34(8):1730–1737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harrop J, Rezai AR, Hoh DJ, Ghobrial GM, Sharan A (2013) Neurosurgical training with a novel cervical spine simulator: posterior foraminotomy and laminectomy. Neurosurgery 73:S94–S99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rudarakanchana N, Herzeele IV, Bicknell CD, Riga CV, Rolls A, Cheshire NJW, Hamady MS (2013) Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: technical and team training in an immersive virtual reality environment. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 37(4):920–927

    Google Scholar 

  11. Waran V, Narayanan V, Karuppiah R, Owen SL, Aziz T (2014) Utility of multimaterial 3d printers in creating models with pathological entities to enhance the training experience of neurosurgeons. J Neurosurg 120(2):489–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pustka D, Huber M, Bauer M, Klinker G (2006) Spatial relationship patterns: elements of reusable tracking and calibration systems. In: International symposium on mixed and augmented reality, pp 88–97

  13. Tsai RY, Lenz RK (1988) Real time versatile robotics hand/eye calibration using 3d machine vision. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 554–561

  14. Tuceryan M, Greer DS, Whitaker RT, Breen DE, Crampton C, Rose E, Ahlers KH (1995) Calibration requirements and procedures for a monitor-based augmented reality system. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 1(3):255–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Besl P, McKay N (1992) A method for registration of 3-d shapes. Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14(2):239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Habert S (2017) DRR Renderer, GitHub repository. https://github.com/SeverineHabert/Drr-renderer

  17. Wang L (2012) Novel techniques for integrating video augmented X-ray imaging into orthopedic and trauma surgery. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität München

  18. Navab N, Heining SM, Traub J (2010) Camera augmented mobile C-arm (camc): calibration, accuracy study, and clinical applications. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29(7):1412–1423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peh W (2011) Image-guided facet joint injection. Biomed Imaging Interv J 7(1):e4

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Torres I, De Luccia N (2017) A simulator for training in endovascular aneurysm repair: the use of three dimensional printers. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 54(2):247–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tjardes T, Shafizadeh S, Rixen D, Paffrath T, Bouillon B, Steinhausen ES, Baethis H (2009) Image-guided spine surgery: state of the art and future directions. Eur Spine J 19(1):25–45

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Downing SM (2003) Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 37(9):830–837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Korndorffer JR Jr, Kasten SJ, Downing SM (2010) A call for the utilization of consensus standards in the surgical education literature. Am J Surg 199(1):99–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rodas NL, Padoy N (2014) 3d global estimation and augmented reality visualization of intra-operative x-ray dose. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, pp 415–422

  26. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84(2):273–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Thinggaard E, Bjerrum F, Strandbygaard J, Ggenur I, Konge L (2015) Validity of a cross-specialty test in basic laparoscopic techniques (TABLT). Br J Surg 102(9):1106–1113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Matthias Weigl, Michael Pfandler, Wolfgang Böcker, Ekkehard Euler, Simon Weidert for their support.

Funding

This work has been partially supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG Grant NA 620/30-1.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Philipp Stefan and Séverine Habert contributed equally to this study.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Aided Medical Procedures (CAMP), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Philipp Stefan, Séverine Habert, Alexander Winkler, Ulrich Eck & Nassir Navab

  2. Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Marc Lazarovici & Julian Fürmetz

  3. Computer Aided Medical Procedures, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

    Nassir Navab

Authors
  1. Philipp Stefan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Séverine Habert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Winkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc Lazarovici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julian Fürmetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ulrich Eck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nassir Navab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Philipp Stefan or Séverine Habert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (mp4 33288 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stefan, P., Habert, S., Winkler, A. et al. A radiation-free mixed-reality training environment and assessment concept for C-arm-based surgery. Int J CARS 13, 1335–1344 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1807-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1807-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation