3D vs. 2D simulated fetoscopy for spina bifida repair: a quantitative motion analysis.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Nov 2023
28 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
19
02
2023
accepted:
14
11
2023
medline:
30
11
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
28
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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 ([Formula: see text] 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, CO[Formula: see text] 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 ([Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text] min; p [Formula: see text] 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38016964
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-47531-9
pii: 10.1038/s41598-023-47531-9
pmc: PMC10684542
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20951Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Feb;101(2):125-31
pubmed: 8305386
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Jun 18;15(1):49
pubmed: 29914518
Front Neurol. 2018 Sep 12;9:615
pubmed: 30258393
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jan;61(1):81-92
pubmed: 35353933
Childs Nerv Syst. 2023 Nov;39(11):3131-3136
pubmed: 36840750
Surg Innov. 2011 Sep;18(3):223-30
pubmed: 21742655
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 Jan;29(1):114-120
pubmed: 30256710
Surg Endosc. 2019 Dec;33(12):4164-4170
pubmed: 30843096
Ann Surg. 2016 Feb;263(2):234-9
pubmed: 26501704
Br J Surg. 2014 Oct;101(11):1453-9
pubmed: 25131843
Acad Radiol. 2011 Aug;18(8):1035-48
pubmed: 21652229
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun;55(6):730-739
pubmed: 31273862
Surg Endosc. 2014 Aug;28(8):2387-97
pubmed: 24651895
J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2012 Jan;3(1):87-9
pubmed: 22368436
Surg Endosc. 1997 May;11(5):438-40
pubmed: 9153170
Surg Endosc. 2016 Jan;30(1):11-23
pubmed: 25840896
Asian J Surg. 2019 Jan;42(1):303-306
pubmed: 29807690
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Dec 09;12:112
pubmed: 26651329
Surg Endosc. 2001 Nov;15(11):1282-8
pubmed: 11727134
PLoS Biol. 2010 Jun 29;8(6):e1000412
pubmed: 20613859
Surg Endosc. 2014 Jul;28(7):2106-19
pubmed: 24519030
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):256.e1-256.e13
pubmed: 29246577
Childs Nerv Syst. 2021 May;37(5):1613-1621
pubmed: 33392653
Am J Surg. 2017 Jan;213(1):159-170
pubmed: 27816196
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;119:79-84
pubmed: 16404019
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015 Apr 30;1:15007
pubmed: 27189655
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Aug;21(8):1087-1094
pubmed: 31080087
Prenat Diagn. 2023 Mar;43(3):355-358
pubmed: 36627260
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Oct;171(4):1139-42
pubmed: 7943087
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 17;11(1):6109
pubmed: 33731777