Augmented reality in laparoscopic liver resection evaluated on an ex-vivo animal model with pseudo-tumours

Background The aim of this study was to assess the performance of our augmented reality (AR) software (Hepataug) during laparoscopic resection of liver tumours and compare it to standard ultrasonography (US). Materials and methods Ninety pseudo-tumours ranging from 10 to 20 mm were created in sheep...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2022, Vol.36 (1), p.833-843
Hauptverfasser: Adballah, Mourad, Espinel, Yamid, Calvet, Lilian, Pereira, Bruno, Le Roy, Bertrand, Bartoli, Adrien, Buc, Emmanuel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The aim of this study was to assess the performance of our augmented reality (AR) software (Hepataug) during laparoscopic resection of liver tumours and compare it to standard ultrasonography (US). Materials and methods Ninety pseudo-tumours ranging from 10 to 20 mm were created in sheep cadaveric livers by injection of alginate. CT-scans were then performed and 3D models reconstructed using a medical image segmentation software (MITK). The livers were placed in a pelvi-trainer on an inclined plane, approximately perpendicular to the laparoscope. The aim was to obtain free resection margins, as close as possible to 1 cm. Laparoscopic resection was performed using US alone ( n  = 30, US group), AR alone ( n  = 30, AR group) and both US and AR ( n  = 30, ARUS group). R0 resection, maximal margins, minimal margins and mean margins were assessed after histopathologic examination, adjusted to the tumour depth and to a liver zone-wise difficulty level. Results The minimal margins were not different between the three groups (8.8, 8.0 and 6.9 mm in the US, AR and ARUS groups, respectively). The maximal margins were larger in the US group compared to the AR and ARUS groups after adjustment on depth and zone difficulty (21 vs. 18 mm, p  = 0.001 and 21 vs. 19.5 mm, p  = 0.037, respectively). The mean margins, which reflect the variability of the measurements, were larger in the US group than in the ARUS group after adjustment on depth and zone difficulty (15.2 vs. 12.8 mm, p  
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-021-08798-z