3D vs. 2D simulated fetoscopy for spina bifida repair: a quantitative motion analysis

被引:0
|
作者
Mirza Awais Ahmad
Yolan Weiler
Luc Joyeux
Elisenda Eixarch
Tom Vercauteren
Sebastien Ourselin
Jan Deprest
Emmanuel Vander Poorten
机构
[1] Catholic University of Leuven,Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences
[2] University Hospital of Leuven,Obstetrics and Gynaecology
[3] Universitat de Barcelona,BCNatal Fetal Medicine Research Center, Hospital Clinic, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu
[4] Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS),Department of Imaging and Biomedical Engineering
[5] Centre for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER),undefined
[6] Kings College,undefined
来源
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
3D imaging technology is becoming more prominent every day. However, more validation is needed to understand the actual benefit of 3D versus conventional 2D vision. This work quantitatively investigates whether experts benefit from 3D vision during minimally invasive fetoscopic spina bifida (fSB) repair. A superiority study was designed involving one expert team (>18\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$>18$$\end{document} procedures prior) who performed six 2D and six 3D fSB repair simulations in a high-fidelity animal training model, using 3-port access. The 6D motion of the instruments was recorded. Among the motion metrics are total path length, smoothness, maximum speed, the modified Spectral Arc Length (SPARC), and Log Dimensionless Jerk (LDLJ). The primary clinical outcome is operation time (power 90%, 5% significance) using Sealed Envelope Ltd. 2012. Secondary clinical outcomes are water tightness of the repair, CO2\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$_2$$\end{document} insufflation volume, and OSATS score. Findings show that total path length and LDLJ are considerably different. Operation time during 3D vision was found to be significantly shorter compared to 2D vision (113±9\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$113\pm 9$$\end{document} vs. 149±19\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$149\pm 19$$\end{document} min; p =\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 0.026). These results suggest enhanced performance with 3D vision during interrupted suturing in fetoscopic SBA repair. To confirm these results, a larger-scale follow-up study involving multiple experts and novice surgeons is recommended.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] 3D vs. 2D simulated fetoscopy for spina bifida repair: a quantitative motion analysis
    Ahmad, Mirza Awais
    Weiler, Yolan
    Joyeux, Luc
    Eixarch, Elisenda
    Vercauteren, Tom
    Ourselin, Sebastien
    Deprest, Jan
    Vander Poorten, Emmanuel
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01)
  • [2] Simulated 2D vs. 3D shock waves: Implications for particle acceleration
    Jones, FC
    Physics of Collisionless Shocks, 2005, 781 : 165 - 169
  • [3] Signaling reactions in 2D vs. 3D
    Huang, William Y. C.
    Boxer, Steven G.
    Ferrell, James E.
    BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 123 (03) : 21A - 21A
  • [4] 2D vs. 3D Mammography: Observer Study
    Fernandez, James Reza F.
    Hovanessian-Larsen, Linda
    Liu, Brent
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2011: ADVANCED PACS-BASED IMAGING INFORMATICS AND THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS, 2011, 7967
  • [5] Differences in 3D vs. 2D analysis in lumbar spinal fusion simulations
    Hsu, Hung-Wei
    Bashkuev, Maxim
    Pumberger, Matthias
    Schmidt, Hendrik
    JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 2018, 72 : 262 - 267
  • [6] Image quality vs. NEC in 2D and 3D PET
    Wilson, John W.
    Turkington, Timothy G.
    Wilson, Josh M.
    Colsher, James G.
    Ross, Steven G.
    2005 IEEE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM CONFERENCE RECORD, VOLS 1-5, 2005, : 2133 - 2137
  • [7] 2D whispering gallery vs. 3D whispering cave
    Kwon, O'Dae
    LASER RESONATORS AND BEAM CONTROL X, 2008, 6872
  • [8] Comparison between MRI and the combination of 2D and 3D US in the prenatal diagnosis of closed spina bifida
    Zhang, Weiping
    Wang, Jingling
    Wu, Hui
    Chen, Li
    PEDIATRIC NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 58 (06) : 392 - 400
  • [9] 2D vs. 3D positioning results for 4D treatments
    Lederer, Lydia
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2019, 195 (06) : 604 - 604
  • [10] 3D vs. 2D Analysis of FinFET Logic Gates under Process Variations
    Chaudhuri, Sourindra
    Jha, Niraj K.
    2011 IEEE 29TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER DESIGN (ICCD), 2011, : 435 - 436