Assessment of the Size of the Surgical Site in Minimally Invasive Hip Surgery.

Objective: Minimally invasive approaches to the hip are beneficial to the patient, but reduce the space available for manipulation by the surgeon. Determining the available working space is important for the development of surgical instruments, to track movements during surgery, as well as to classify the invasiveness of the procedure. Approach: We evaluate three measurement methods to assess the volume of eight surgical sites in a cadaver study. The cavities were filled with an alginate cast to determine its dimensions. Second, the depth, height, and width of the surgical site were measured with a ruler and the volume was calculated. Last, the surface registration method was used to reconstruct the site. Results: We found that the mold filling method provides accurate results in determining the volume of a surgical site. The manual method using a ruler showed excellent reliability, but the calculations tended to overestimate the volume of the surgical site. In contrast, surface reconstruction tended to underestimate the volume of a surgical site, but the results closer resembled the ones derived from the mold filling method. Innovation: We presented a new method to assess the size of the surgical site intraoperatively in minimally invasive hip surgery. Conclusion: The manual method is reliable, but not as accurate as the surface reconstruction, while the mold filling method cannot be used in an intraoperative setup. Although surface reconstruction showed deficits regarding reliability, due to the lack of direct contact to the patient, it remains an appealing technique to measure the surgical site.

[1]  Aaron G Rosenberg,et al.  Rapid Rehabilitation and Recovery with Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  Laura Bolton.  Re: Measuring wound length, width, and area: which technique? , 2008, Advances in skin & wound care.

[3]  D J Smith,et al.  A non-invasive, three-dimensional, diagnostic laser imaging system for accurate wound analysis. , 1996, Physiological measurement.

[4]  Mark G. Duckworth,et al.  A Clinically Affordable Non-Contact Wound Measurement Device , 2007 .

[5]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Documentation of wound surface area from tracings of wound perimeters. Clinical report on three techniques. , 1983, Physical therapy.

[6]  P Plassmann,et al.  MAVIS: a non-invasive instrument to measure area and volume of wounds. Measurement of Area and Volume Instrument System. , 1998, Medical engineering & physics.

[7]  J. Griffin,et al.  Measurement of pressure ulcer volume using dental impression materials: suggestion from the field. , 1989, Physical therapy.

[8]  T. Ringbeck,et al.  © Author(s) 2007. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Multidimensional measurement by using 3-D PMD sensors , 2022 .

[9]  J. Kundin,et al.  A new way to size up a wound. , 1989, The American journal of nursing.

[10]  J M Melhuish,et al.  Methods of measuring wound size: a comparative study. , 1994, Ostomy/wound management.

[11]  M. Nogler,et al.  Der direkte anteriore Zugang in der Revisionshüftendoprothetik , 2012, Operative Orthopädie und Traumatologie.

[12]  J M Melhuish,et al.  Circumference, area and volume of the healing wound. , 1994, Journal of wound care.

[13]  W. Hozack,et al.  A double offset broach handle for preparation of the femoral cavity in minimally invasive direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[14]  M. G. Woodbury,et al.  A comparison of computer-assisted and manual wound size measurement. , 2002, Ostomy/wound management.

[15]  François Blais.  Review of 20 years of range sensor development , 2004, J. Electronic Imaging.

[16]  Wangdo Kim,et al.  Wound measurement by curvature maps: a feasibility study , 2006, Physiological measurement.

[17]  E A Tolley,et al.  A comparison of photographic and transparency-based methods for measuring wound surface area. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[18]  D. Falie,et al.  Measurements with ToF Cameras and Their Necessary Corrections , 2007, 2007 International Symposium on Signals, Circuits and Systems.

[19]  Robert J Goldman,et al.  More than One Way to Measure a Wound: An Overview of Tools and Techniques , 2002, Advances in skin & wound care.

[20]  S J Henly,et al.  Comparison of 2 wound volume measurement methods. , 2001, Advances in skin & wound care.

[21]  Joachim Hornegger,et al.  Gesture recognition with a Time-Of-Flight camera , 2008, Int. J. Intell. Syst. Technol. Appl..

[22]  Stephen Sprigle,et al.  Iterative design and testing of a hand-held, non-contact wound measurement device. , 2012, Journal of tissue viability.

[23]  Stefan May,et al.  Calibration and Registration for Precise Surface Reconstruction with TOF Cameras , 2007 .

[24]  Julie W. Anderson,et al.  Measuring Wound Length, Width, and Area: Which Technique? , 2008, Advances in skin & wound care.

[25]  K. Hartmann,et al.  Data-Fusion of PMD-Based Distance-Information and High-Resolution RGB-Images , 2007, 2007 International Symposium on Signals, Circuits and Systems.

[26]  Mihai Ivanovici,et al.  Improved contours for ToF cameras based on vicinity logic operations , 2010, 2010 12th International Conference on Optimization of Electrical and Electronic Equipment.

[27]  Benjamin Albouy,et al.  Three-Dimensional Assessment of Skin Wounds Using a Standard Digital Camera , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[28]  Reinhard Koch,et al.  Pose estimation and map building with a Time-Of-Flight-camera for robot navigation , 2008, Int. J. Intell. Syst. Technol. Appl..

[29]  Pouching principles and products. , 1994, Ostomy/wound management.