Abstract
Purpose
To perform a systematic literature review on the clinical impact of augmented reality (AR) for urological interventions.
Methods
As of June 21, 2018, systematic literature review was performed via Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018102194). Only full text articles in English were included, without time restrictions. Articles were considered if they reported on the use of AR during urological intervention and the impact on the surgical outcomes. The risk of bias and the quality of each study included were independently assessed using the standard Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies—of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I).
Results
131 articles were identified. 102 remained after duplicate removal and were critically reviewed for evidence synthesis. 20 studies reporting on the outcomes of the use of AR during urological interventions in a clinical setting were considered. Given the mostly non-comparative design of the studies identified, the evidence synthesis was performed in a descriptive and narrative manner. Only one comparative study was found, with the remaining 19 items being single-arm observational studies. Based on the existing evidence, we are unable to state that AR improves the outcomes of urological interventions. The major limitation of AR-assisted surgery is inaccuracy in registration, translating into a poor navigation precision.
Conclusions
To date, there is limited evidence showing superior therapeutic benefits of AR-guided surgery when compared with the conventional surgical approach to the respective disease.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tang SL, Kwoh CK, Teo MY et al (1998) Augmented reality systems for medical applications. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 17:49–58
Sim HG, Yip SK, Cheng CW (2006) Equipment and technology in surgical robotics. World J Urol 24:128–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-006-0070-6
Ackerman JD, Keller K, Fuchs H (2001) Real-time anatomical 3D image extraction for laparoscopic surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 81:18–22
van Oosterom MN, van der Poel HG, Navab N et al (2018) Computer-assisted surgery: virtual- and augmented-reality displays for navigation during urological interventions. Curr Opin Urol 28:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000478
Abdul-Muhsin HM, Humphreys (2016) Advances in laparoscopic urologic surgery techniques. F1000Res. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7660.1
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
Ukimura O, Gill IS (2008) Imaging-assisted endoscopic surgery: Cleveland Clinic experience. J Endourol 22:803–810. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9823
Su LM, Vagvolgyi BP, Agarwal R et al (2009) Augmented reality during robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: toward real-time 3D-CT to stereoscopic video registration. Urology 73:896–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.11.040
Drewniak T, Rzepecki M, Juszczak K et al (2011) Augmented reality for image guided therapy (ARIGT) of kidney tumor during nephron sparing surgery (NSS): animal model and clinical approach. Folia Med Cracov 51:77–90
Makanjuola JK, Aggoun A, Swash M et al (2012) 3D-holoscopic imaging: a novel way to enhance imaging in minimally invasive therapy in urological oncology. J Endourol 1:A39–A40
KleinJan GH, van den Berg NS, van Oosterom MN et al (2016) Toward (Hybrid) Navigation of a Fluorescence Camera in an Open Surgery Setting. J Nucl Med 57:1650–1653. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.171645
van Oosterom MN, Meershoek P, KleinJan GH et al (2018) Navigation of fluorescence cameras during soft tissue surgery—is it possible to use a single navigation setup for various open and laparoscopic urological surgery applications? J Urol 199:1061–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.160
Nosrati MS, Amir-Khalili A, Peyrat JM et al (2016) Endoscopic scene labelling and augmentation using intraoperative pulsatile motion and colour appearance cues with preoperative anatomical priors. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:1409–1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-015-1331-x
Nosrati MS, Abugharbieh R, Peyrat JM et al (2016) Simultaneous multi-structure segmentation and 3D nonrigid pose estimation in image-guided robotic surgery. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2015.2452907
Amir-Khalili A, Peyrat J-M, Abinahed J et al (2014) Auto localization and segmentation of occluded vessels in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 17:407–414
Wake N, Bjurlin MA, Rostami P et al (2018) Three-dimensional printing and augmented reality: enhanced precision for robotic assisted partial nephrectomy. Urology 116:227–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.12.038
Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Checcucci E et al (2018) Hyperaccuracy three-dimensional reconstruction is able to maximize the efficacy of selective clamping during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal masses. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.027
Marescaux J, Rubino F, Arenas M et al (2004) Augmented-reality-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy. JAMA 292:2214–2215. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.18.2214-c
Teber D, Guven S, Simpfendorfer T et al (2009) Augmented reality: a new tool to improve surgical accuracy during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy? Preliminary in vitro and in vivo results. Eur Urol 56:332–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.05.017
Nakamura K, Naya Y, Zenbutsu S et al (2010) Surgical navigation using three-dimensional computed tomography images fused intraoperatively with live video. J Endourol 24:521–524. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0365
Ruppert GC, Reis LO, Amorim PH et al (2012) Touchless gesture user interface for interactive image visualization in urological surgery. World J Urol 30:687–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0879-0
Simpfendorfer T, Gasch C, Hatiboglu G et al (2016) Intraoperative computed tomography imaging for navigated laparoscopic renal surgery: first clinical experience. J Endourol 30:1105–1111. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0385
Singla R, Edgcumbe P, Pratt P et al (2017) Intra-operative ultrasound-based augmented reality guidance for laparoscopic surgery. Health Technol Lett 4:204–209. https://doi.org/10.1049/htl.2017.0063
Teber D, Simpfendorfer T, Guven S et al (2010) In-vitro evaluation of a soft-tissue navigation system for laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 24:1487–1491. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0289
Simpfendorfer T, Baumhauer M, Muller M et al (2011) Augmented reality visualization during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 25:1841–1845. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0724
Thompson S, Penney G, Billia M et al (2013) Design and evaluation of an image-guidance system for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 111:1081–1090. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11692.x
Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Checcucci E et al (2018) Augmented reality robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: preliminary experience. Urology 115:184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.01.028
Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Amparore D et al (2018) Augmented-reality robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using hyper-accuracy three-dimensional reconstruction (HA3D ™) technology: a radiological and pathological study. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14549
Rassweiler JJ, Müller M, Fangerau M et al (2012) iPad-assisted percutaneous access to the kidney using marker-based navigation: initial clinical experience. Eur Urol 61:628–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.024
Rassweiler MC, Klein J, Muller M et al (2014) IPad guided puncture of the kidney-evaluation with an ex vivo model. Eur Urol Suppl 13(1):e1075
Rassweiler MC, Klein JT, Mueller M et al (2016) IPad assisted PCNL-clinical study to compare to the standard puncturing technique. Eur Urol Suppl 15(3):e578 + e578a
Wu JC, Lin MS, Wu HS, Liu JK (2012) Augmented reality techniques assisted laparoscopic ureteroureterostomy for retrocaval ureter. Chin Med J 125:4158–4159
Borgmann H, Rodriguez Socarras M, Salem J et al (2017) Feasibility and safety of augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using smartglass. World J Urol 35:967–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1956-6
Muller M, Rassweiler MC, Klein J et al (2013) Mobile augmented reality for computer-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 8:663–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0828-4
Edgcumbe P, Pratt P, Yang GZ et al (2015) Pico Lantern: surface reconstruction and augmented reality in laparoscopic surgery using a pick-up laser projector. Med Image Anal 25:95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2015.04.008
Wild E, Teber D, Schmid D et al (2016) Robust augmented reality guidance with fluorescent markers in laparoscopic surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:899–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1385-4
Kong SH, Haouchine N, Soares R et al (2017) Robust augmented reality registration method for localization of solid organs’ tumors using CT-derived virtual biomechanical model and fluorescent fiducials. Surg Endosc 31:2863–2871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5297-8
Yu F, Song E, Liu H et al (2018) An augmented reality endoscope system for ureter position detection. J Med Syst 42:138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-0992-8
Garcia-Cruz E, Bretonnet A, Alcaraz A (2018) Testing smart glasses in urology: clinical and surgical potential applications. Actas Urol Esp 42:207–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2017.06.007
Porpiglia F, Bertolo R, Amparore D et al (2018) Augmented reality during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: expert robotic surgeons’ on-the-spot insights after live surgery. Minerva Urol Nefrol 70:226–229. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0393-2249.18.03143-0
Antonelli A, Veccia A, Palumbo C et al (2018) Holographic reconstructions for preoperative planning before partial nephrectomy: a head-to-head comparison with standard CT scan. Urol Int 12:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000495618
Bertolo R, Autorino R, Fiori C et al (2019) Expanding the indications of robotic partial nephrectomy for highly complex renal tumors: urologists’ perception of the impact of hyperaccuracy three-dimensional reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 29:233–239. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0486
Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ et al (2014) Augmented reality partial nephrectomy: examining the current status and future perspectives. Urology 83:266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.08.049
Autorino R, Porpiglia F, Dasgupta P et al (2017) Precision surgery and genitourinary cancers. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:893–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.02.005
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Protocol/project development: RB, PD, AH. Data collection or management: RB, MS. Data analysis: RB, AH. Manuscript writing: RB. Manuscript editing: PB, PD, AH, FP.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bertolo, R., Hung, A., Porpiglia, F. et al. Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: the evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come. World J Urol 38, 2167–2176 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02711-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02711-z