Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgeries have restricted surgical ports, demanding a high skill level from the surgeon. Surgical simulation potentially reduces this steep learning curve and additionally provides quantitative feedback. Markerless depth sensors show great promise for quantification, but...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burger, Lukas, Sharan, Lalith, Karl, Roger, Wang, Christina, Karck, Matthias, De Simone, Raffaele, Wolf, Ivo, Romano, Gabriele, Engelhardt, Sandy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10284995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37140737
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02887-1
_version_ 1785061514247405568
author Burger, Lukas
Sharan, Lalith
Karl, Roger
Wang, Christina
Karck, Matthias
De Simone, Raffaele
Wolf, Ivo
Romano, Gabriele
Engelhardt, Sandy
author_facet Burger, Lukas
Sharan, Lalith
Karl, Roger
Wang, Christina
Karck, Matthias
De Simone, Raffaele
Wolf, Ivo
Romano, Gabriele
Engelhardt, Sandy
author_sort Burger, Lukas
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgeries have restricted surgical ports, demanding a high skill level from the surgeon. Surgical simulation potentially reduces this steep learning curve and additionally provides quantitative feedback. Markerless depth sensors show great promise for quantification, but most such sensors are not designed for accurate reconstruction of complex anatomical forms in close-range. METHODS: This work compares three commercially available depth sensors, namely the Intel D405, D415, and the Stereolabs Zed-Mini in the range of 12–20 cm, for use in surgical simulation. Three environments are designed that closely mimic surgical simulation, comprising planar surfaces, rigid objects, and mitral valve models of silicone and realistic porcine tissue. The cameras are evaluated on Z-accuracy, temporal noise, fill rate, checker distance, point cloud comparisons, and visual inspection of surgical scenes, across several camera settings. RESULTS: The Intel cameras show sub-mm accuracy in most static environments. The D415 fails in reconstructing valve models, while the Zed-Mini provides lesser temporal noise and higher fill rate. The D405 could reconstruct anatomical structures like the mitral valve leaflet and a ring prosthesis, but performs poorly for reflective surfaces like surgical tools and thin structures like sutures. CONCLUSION: If a high temporal resolution is needed and lower spatial resolution is acceptable, the Zed-Mini is the best choice, whereas the Intel D405 is the most suited for close-range applications. The D405 shows potential for applications like deformable registration of surfaces, but is not yet suitable for applications like real-time tool tracking or surgical skill assessment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11548-023-02887-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10284995
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102849952023-06-23 Comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation Burger, Lukas Sharan, Lalith Karl, Roger Wang, Christina Karck, Matthias De Simone, Raffaele Wolf, Ivo Romano, Gabriele Engelhardt, Sandy Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Original Article PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgeries have restricted surgical ports, demanding a high skill level from the surgeon. Surgical simulation potentially reduces this steep learning curve and additionally provides quantitative feedback. Markerless depth sensors show great promise for quantification, but most such sensors are not designed for accurate reconstruction of complex anatomical forms in close-range. METHODS: This work compares three commercially available depth sensors, namely the Intel D405, D415, and the Stereolabs Zed-Mini in the range of 12–20 cm, for use in surgical simulation. Three environments are designed that closely mimic surgical simulation, comprising planar surfaces, rigid objects, and mitral valve models of silicone and realistic porcine tissue. The cameras are evaluated on Z-accuracy, temporal noise, fill rate, checker distance, point cloud comparisons, and visual inspection of surgical scenes, across several camera settings. RESULTS: The Intel cameras show sub-mm accuracy in most static environments. The D415 fails in reconstructing valve models, while the Zed-Mini provides lesser temporal noise and higher fill rate. The D405 could reconstruct anatomical structures like the mitral valve leaflet and a ring prosthesis, but performs poorly for reflective surfaces like surgical tools and thin structures like sutures. CONCLUSION: If a high temporal resolution is needed and lower spatial resolution is acceptable, the Zed-Mini is the best choice, whereas the Intel D405 is the most suited for close-range applications. The D405 shows potential for applications like deformable registration of surfaces, but is not yet suitable for applications like real-time tool tracking or surgical skill assessment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11548-023-02887-1. Springer International Publishing 2023-05-04 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10284995/ /pubmed/37140737 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02887-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Burger, Lukas
Sharan, Lalith
Karl, Roger
Wang, Christina
Karck, Matthias
De Simone, Raffaele
Wolf, Ivo
Romano, Gabriele
Engelhardt, Sandy
Comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation
title Comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation
title_full Comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation
title_short Comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation
title_sort comparative evaluation of three commercially available markerless depth sensors for close-range use in surgical simulation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10284995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37140737
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02887-1
work_keys_str_mv AT burgerlukas comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation
AT sharanlalith comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation
AT karlroger comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation
AT wangchristina comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation
AT karckmatthias comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation
AT desimoneraffaele comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation
AT wolfivo comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation
AT romanogabriele comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation
AT engelhardtsandy comparativeevaluationofthreecommerciallyavailablemarkerlessdepthsensorsforcloserangeuseinsurgicalsimulation