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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |