Evaluation of augmented reality training for a navigation device used for CT-guided needle placement.
Augmented reality
Interventional radiology
Medical education
User study
Journal
International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery
ISSN: 1861-6429
Titre abrégé: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101499225
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 May 2024
08 May 2024
Historique:
received:
10
11
2023
accepted:
11
03
2024
medline:
8
5
2024
pubmed:
8
5
2024
entrez:
8
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Numerous navigation devices for percutaneous, CT-guided interventions exist and are, due to their advantages, increasingly integrated into the clinical workflow. However, effective training methods to ensure safe usage are still lacking. This study compares the potential of an augmented reality (AR) training application with conventional instructions for the Cube Navigation System (CNS), hypothesizing enhanced training with AR, leading to safer clinical usage. An AR-tablet app was developed to train users puncturing with CNS. In a study, 34 medical students were divided into two groups: One trained with the AR-app, while the other used conventional instructions. After training, each participant executed 6 punctures on a phantom (204 in total) following a standardized protocol to identify and measure two potential CNS procedural user errors: (1) missing the coordinates specified and (2) altering the needle trajectory during puncture. Training performance based on train time and occurrence of procedural errors, as well as scores of User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) for both groups, was compared. Training duration was similar between the groups. However, the AR-trained participants showed a 55.1% reduced frequency of the first procedural error (p > 0.05) and a 35.1% reduced extent of the second procedural error (p < 0.01) compared to the conventionally trained participants. UEQ scores favored the AR-training in five of six categories (p < 0.05). The AR-app enhanced training performance and user experience over traditional methods. This suggests the potential of AR-training for navigation devices like the CNS, potentially increasing their safety, ultimately improving outcomes in percutaneous needle placements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38717736
doi: 10.1007/s11548-024-03112-3
pii: 10.1007/s11548-024-03112-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Innosuisse - Schweizerische Agentur für Innovationsförderung
ID : 63540_1_INNO-LS
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Li M, Seifabadi R, Long D, De Ruiter Q, Varble N, Hecht R, Negussie AH, Krishnasamy V, Xu S, Wood BJ (2020) Smartphone- versus smartglasses-based augmented reality (AR) for percutaneous needle interventions: system accuracy and feasibility study. Int J CARS 15:1921–1930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-020-02235-7
doi: 10.1007/s11548-020-02235-7
Davrieux CF, Giménez ME, González CA, Ancel A, Guinin M, Fahrer B, Serra E, Kwak J-M, Marescaux J, Hostettler A (2020) Mixed reality navigation system for ultrasound-guided percutaneous punctures: a pre-clinical evaluation. Surg Endosc 34:226–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06755-5
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06755-5
pubmed: 30911919
Chehab M, Brinjikji W, Copelan A, Venkatesan A (2015) Navigational tools for interventional radiology and interventional oncology applications. Semin intervent Radiol 32:416–427. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1564705
doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1564705
pubmed: 26622105
pmcid: 4640922
Durand P, Moreau-Gaudry A, Silvent A-S, Frandon J, Chipon E, Médici M, Bricault I (2017) Computer assisted electromagnetic navigation improves accuracy in computed tomography guided interventions: a prospective randomized clinical trial. PLoS ONE 12:e0173751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173751
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173751
pubmed: 28296957
pmcid: 5351986
Scharll Y, Mitteregger A, Laimer G, Schwabl C, Schullian P, Bale R (2022) Comparison of a robotic and patient-mounted device for CT-guided needle placement: a phantom study. JCM 11:3746. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133746
doi: 10.3390/jcm11133746
pubmed: 35807029
pmcid: 9267795
Mokry A, Willmitzer F, Hostettler R, Richter H, Kircher P, Kneissl S, Wetzel S (2019) Evaluation of a novel, patient-mounted system for CT-guided needle navigation—an ex vivo study. Neuroradiology 61:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2107-0
doi: 10.1007/s00234-018-2107-0
pubmed: 30506482
Barsom EZ, Graafland M, Schijven MP (2016) Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training. Surg Endosc 30:4174–4183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4800-6
doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4800-6
pubmed: 26905573
pmcid: 5009168
Tang KS, Cheng DL, Mi E, Greenberg PB (2020) Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review. Can Med Educ J 11:e81–e96. https://doi.org/10.3683/cmej.61705
doi: 10.3683/cmej.61705
pubmed: 32215146
pmcid: 7082471
Lia H, Paulin G, Yi N, Haq H, Emmanuel S, Ludig K, Keri Z, Lasso A, Fichtinger G, Yeo CT, Andrews J (2018) HoloLens in suturing training. In: Webster RJ, Fei B (eds) Medical imaging 2018: image-guided procedures, robotic interventions, and modeling. SPIE, Houston, United States, p 69
Azimi E, Winkler A, Tucker E, Qian L, Doswell J, Navab N, Kazanzides P (2018) Can mixed-reality improve the training of medical procedures? In: 2018 40th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). IEEE, Honolulu, HI, pp 4065–4068
Wolf J, Wolfer V, Halbe M, Maisano F, Lohmeyer Q, Meboldt M (2021) Comparing the effectiveness of augmented reality-based and conventional instructions during single ECMO cannulation training. Int J CARS 16:1171–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02408-y
doi: 10.1007/s11548-021-02408-y
Ungi T, Sargent D, Moult E, Lasso A, Pinter C, McGraw RC, Fichtinger G (2012) Perk tutor: an open-source training platform for ultrasound-guided needle insertions. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59:3475–3481. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2012.2219307
doi: 10.1109/TBME.2012.2219307
pubmed: 23008243
Holden MS, Xia S, Lia H, Keri Z, Bell C, Patterson L, Ungi T, Fichtinger G (2019) Machine learning methods for automated technical skills assessment with instructional feedback in ultrasound-guided interventions. Int J CARS 14:1993–2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-01977-3
doi: 10.1007/s11548-019-01977-3
Hayasaka T, Kawano K, Onodera Y, Suzuki H, Nakane M, Kanoto M, Kawamae K (2023) Comparison of accuracy between augmented reality/mixed reality techniques and conventional techniques for epidural anesthesia using a practice phantom model kit. BMC Anesthesiol 23:171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02133-w
doi: 10.1186/s12871-023-02133-w
pubmed: 37210521
pmcid: 10199582
Krammer L, Hostettler R, Wetzel S (2023) Evaluation of the access cube patient-mounted navigation system for CT-guided percutaneous needle placement–a phantom study. J Vascular Interv Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2023.06.036
doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2023.06.036
Huynh DQ (2009) Metrics for 3D rotations: comparison and analysis. J Math Imaging Vis 35:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-009-0161-2
doi: 10.1007/s10851-009-0161-2
Laugwitz B, Held T, Schrepp M (2008) Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger A (ed) HCI and usability for education and work. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 63–76
doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6
Schrepp M (2015) User experience questionnaire handbook. All you need to know to apply the UEQ successfully in your project. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2815.0245
Laimer G, Jaschke N, Schullian P, Putzer D, Eberle G, Solbiati M, Solbiati L, Goldberg SN, Bale R (2021) Volumetric assessment of the periablational safety margin after thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Eur Radiol 31:6489–6499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07579-x
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07579-x
pubmed: 33447860
pmcid: 8379110