End‐user evaluation of software‐generated intervention planning environment for transrectal magnetic resonance‐guided prostate biopsies

Background This study presents user evaluation studies to assess the effect of information rendered by an interventional planning software on the operator's ability to plan transrectal magnetic resonance (MR)‐guided prostate biopsies using actuated robotic manipulators. Methods An intervention...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery 2021-02, Vol.17 (1), p.1-12
Hauptverfasser: Velazco‐Garcia, Jose D., Navkar, Nikhil V., Balakrishnan, Shidin, Abi‐Nahed, Julien, Al‐Rumaihi, Khalid, Darweesh, Adham, Al‐Ansari, Abdulla, Christoforou, Eftychios G., Karkoub, Mansour, Leiss, Ernst L., Tsiamyrtzis, Panagiotis, Tsekos, Nikolaos V.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background This study presents user evaluation studies to assess the effect of information rendered by an interventional planning software on the operator's ability to plan transrectal magnetic resonance (MR)‐guided prostate biopsies using actuated robotic manipulators. Methods An intervention planning software was developed based on the clinical workflow followed for MR‐guided transrectal prostate biopsies. The software was designed to interface with a generic virtual manipulator and simulate an intervention environment using 2D and 3D scenes. User studies were conducted with urologists using the developed software to plan virtual biopsies. Results User studies demonstrated that urologists with prior experience in using 3D software completed the planning less time. 3D scenes were required to control all degrees‐of‐freedom of the manipulator, while 2D scenes were sufficient for planar motion of the manipulator. Conclusions The study provides insights on using 2D versus 3D environment from a urologist's perspective for different operational modes of MR‐guided prostate biopsy systems.
ISSN:1478-5951
1478-596X
DOI:10.1002/rcs.2179