These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparing a virtual reality head-mounted display to on-screen three-dimensional visualization and two-dimensional computed tomography data for training in decision making in hepatic surgery: a randomized controlled study.
    Author: Preukschas AA, Wise PA, Bettscheider L, Pfeiffer M, Wagner M, Huber M, Golriz M, Fischer L, Mehrabi A, Rössler F, Speidel S, Hackert T, Müller-Stich BP, Nickel F, Kenngott HG.
    Journal: Surg Endosc; 2024 May; 38(5):2483-2496. PubMed ID: 38456945.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the benefits of a virtual reality (VR) environment with a head-mounted display (HMD) for decision-making in liver surgery. BACKGROUND: Training in liver surgery involves appraising radiologic images and considering the patient's clinical information. Accurate assessment of 2D-tomography images is complex and requires considerable experience, and often the images are divorced from the clinical information. We present a comprehensive and interactive tool for visualizing operation planning data in a VR environment using a head-mounted-display and compare it to 3D visualization and 2D-tomography. METHODS: Ninety medical students were randomized into three groups (1:1:1 ratio). All participants analyzed three liver surgery patient cases with increasing difficulty. The cases were analyzed using 2D-tomography data (group "2D"), a 3D visualization on a 2D display (group "3D") or within a VR environment (group "VR"). The VR environment was displayed using the "Oculus Rift ™" HMD technology. Participants answered 11 questions on anatomy, tumor involvement and surgical decision-making and 18 evaluative questions (Likert scale). RESULTS: Sum of correct answers were significantly higher in the 3D (7.1 ± 1.4, p < 0.001) and VR (7.1 ± 1.4, p < 0.001) groups than the 2D group (5.4 ± 1.4) while there was no difference between 3D and VR (p = 0.987). Times to answer in the 3D (6:44 ± 02:22 min, p < 0.001) and VR (6:24 ± 02:43 min, p < 0.001) groups were significantly faster than the 2D group (09:13 ± 03:10 min) while there was no difference between 3D and VR (p = 0.419). The VR environment was evaluated as most useful for identification of anatomic anomalies, risk and target structures and for the transfer of anatomical and pathological information to the intraoperative situation in the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: A VR environment with 3D visualization using a HMD is useful as a surgical training tool to accurately and quickly determine liver anatomy and tumor involvement in surgery.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]