In vivo estimation of target registration errors during augmented reality laparoscopic surgery

PurposeSuccessful use of augmented reality for laparoscopic surgery requires that the surgeon has a thorough understanding of the likely accuracy of any overlay. Whilst the accuracy of such systems can be estimated in the laboratory, it is difficult to extend such methods to the in vivo clinical setting. Herein we describe a novel method that enables the surgeon to estimate in vivo errors during use. We show that the method enables quantitative evaluation of in vivo data gathered with the SmartLiver image guidance system.MethodsThe SmartLiver system utilises an intuitive display to enable the surgeon to compare the positions of landmarks visible in both a projected model and in the live video stream. From this the surgeon can estimate the system accuracy when using the system to locate subsurface targets not visible in the live video. Visible landmarks may be either point or line features. We test the validity of the algorithm using an anatomically representative liver phantom, applying simulated perturbations to achieve clinically realistic overlay errors. We then apply the algorithm to in vivo data.ResultsThe phantom results show that using projected errors of surface features provides a reliable predictor of subsurface target registration error for a representative human liver shape. Applying the algorithm to in vivo data gathered with the SmartLiver image-guided surgery system shows that the system is capable of accuracies around 12 mm; however, achieving this reliably remains a significant challenge.ConclusionWe present an in vivo quantitative evaluation of the SmartLiver image-guided surgery system, together with a validation of the evaluation algorithm. This is the first quantitative in vivo analysis of an augmented reality system for laparoscopic surgery.

[1]  Kevin Cleary,et al.  Stereoscopic augmented reality for laparoscopic surgery , 2014, Surgical Endoscopy.

[2]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  The NifTK software platform for image-guided interventions: platform overview and NiftyLink messaging , 2014, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[3]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Breathing motion compensated registration of laparoscopic liver ultrasound to CT , 2017, Medical Imaging.

[4]  Klaus H. Maier-Hein,et al.  The Medical Imaging Interaction Toolkit: challenges and advances , 2013, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[5]  Michael I. Miga,et al.  Improving Registration Robustness for Image-Guided Liver Surgery in a Novel Human-to-Phantom Data Framework , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  Hand–eye calibration for rigid laparoscopes using an invariant point , 2016, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[7]  Guang-Zhong Yang,et al.  An effective visualisation and registration system for image-guided robotic partial nephrectomy , 2012, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[8]  Alexandre Hostettler,et al.  Registration of Preoperative Liver Model for Laparoscopic Surgery from Intraoperative 3D Acquisition , 2013, AE-CAI.

[9]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  Accuracy validation of an image guided laparoscopy system for liver resection , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[10]  Ghassan Hamarneh,et al.  Uncertainty-Encoded Augmented Reality for Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Phantom Study , 2013, AE-CAI.

[11]  A. Bartoli,et al.  Computer assisted minimally invasive surgery: is medical computer vision the answer to improving laparosurgery? , 2012, Medical hypotheses.

[12]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Intelligent viewpoint selection for efficient CT to video registration in laparoscopic liver surgery , 2017, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[13]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Improved Modelling of Tool Tracking Errors by Modelling Dependent Marker Errors , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[14]  Jay B. West,et al.  Designing optically tracked instruments for image-guided surgery , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  Brice Gayet,et al.  Augmented Reality Navigation Surgery Facilitates Laparoscopic Rescue of Failed Portal Vein Embolization. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[16]  S. Weber,et al.  Augmented environments for the targeting of hepatic lesions during image-guided robotic liver surgery. , 2013, The Journal of surgical research.

[17]  K. S. Arun,et al.  Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[18]  Lena Maier-Hein,et al.  Projective biomechanical depth matching for soft tissue registration in laparoscopic surgery , 2017, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[19]  Jay B. West,et al.  The distribution of target registration error in rigid-body point-based registration , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[20]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Fast Semi-dense Surface Reconstruction from Stereoscopic Video in Laparoscopic Surgery , 2014, IPCAI.

[21]  Luc Soler,et al.  The status of augmented reality in laparoscopic surgery as of 2016 , 2017, Medical Image Anal..

[22]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Progressive internal landmark registration for surgical navigation in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer , 2016, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[23]  G. Wakabayashi,et al.  Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing , 2016, Annals of surgery.

[24]  Roger Y. Tsai,et al.  A versatile camera calibration technique for high-accuracy 3D machine vision metrology using off-the-shelf TV cameras and lenses , 1987, IEEE J. Robotics Autom..