THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1596
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The current and future use of imaging in urological robotic surgery: a survey of the European Association of Robotic Urological Surgeons
Archie Hughes-Hallett1 Erik K. Mayer1* Philip Pratt2 Alex Mottrie3,4 Ara Darzi1,2 Justin Vale1 1
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
2
The Hamlyn Centre for Robotic Surgery, Imperial College, London, UK
3
Department of Urology, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium
4
O.L.V. Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Aalst, Belgium *Correspondence to: Erik Mayer, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Marys Hospital Campus, London, W2 1NY, UK. Email: [email protected]
Abstract Background With the development of novel augmented reality operating platforms the way surgeons utilise imaging as a real-time adjunct to surgical technique is changing. Methods A questionnaire was distributed via the European Robotic Urological Society mailing list. The questionnaire had three themes: surgeon demographics, current use of imaging and potential uses of an augmented reality operating environment in robotic urological surgery. Results 117 of the 239 respondents (48.9%) were independently practising robotic surgeons. 74% of surgeons reported having imaging available in theatre for prostatectomy 97% for robotic partial nephrectomy and 95% cystectomy. 87% felt there was a role for augmented reality as a navigation tool in robotic surgery. Conclusions This survey has revealed the contemporary robotic surgeon to be comfortable in the use of imaging for intraoperative planning it also suggests that there is a desire for augmented reality platforms within the urological community. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords cystectomy
Augmented reality; Imaging; robotic; prostatectomy; partial nephrectomy;
Introduction
Accepted: 22 March 2014
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Since Röntgen first utilized X-rays to image the carpal bones of the human hand in 1895, medical imaging has evolved and is now able to provide a detailed representation of a patient’s intracorporeal anatomy, with recent advances now allowing for 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructions. The visualisation of anatomy in 3D has been shown to improve the ability to localize structures when compared with 2D with no change in the amount of cognitive loading (1). This has allowed imaging to move from a largely diagnostic tool to one that can be used for both diagnosis and operative planning.
A. Hughes-Hallett et al.
One potential interface to display 3D images, to maximize its potential as a tool for surgical guidance, is to overlay them onto the endoscopic operative scene (augmented reality). This addresses, in part, a criticism often levelled at robotic surgery, the loss of haptic feedback. Augmented reality has the potential to mitigate this sensory loss by enhancing the surgeons visual cues with information regarding subsurface anatomical relationships (2). Augmented reality surgery is in its infancy for intraabdominal procedures due in large part to the difficulties of applying static preoperative imaging to a constantly deforming intraoperative scene (3). There are case reports and ex vivo studies in the literature examining the technology in minimal access prostatectomy (3–6) and partial nephrectomy (7–10), but there remains a lack of evidence determining whether surgeons feel there is a role for the technology and if so for what procedures they feel it would be efficacious. This questionnaire-based study was designed to assess first, the pre- and intra-operative imaging modalities utilized by robotic urologists; second, the current use of imaging intraoperatively for surgical planning; and finally whether there is a desire for augmented reality among the robotic urological community.
Methods Recruitment A web based survey instrument was designed and sent out, as part of a larger survey, to members of the EAU robotic urology section (ERUS). Only independently practising robotic surgeons performing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and/or robotic cystectomy were included in the analysis, those surgeons exclusively performing other procedures were excluded. Respondents were offered no incentives to reply. All data collected was anonymous.
Survey content Demographics All respondents to the survey were asked in what country they practised and what robotic urological procedures they performed. In addition to what procedures they performed surgeons were asked to specify the number of cases they had undertaken for each procedure. Current imaging practice Procedure-specific questions in this group were displayed according to the operations the respondent performed. A summary of the questions can be seen in Appendix 1. Procedure-nonspecific questions were also asked. Participants were asked whether they routinely used the Tile Pro™ function of the da Vinci console (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) and whether they routinely viewed imaging intra-operatively. Augmented reality Before answering questions in this section, participants were invited to watch a video demonstrating an augmented reality platform during RAPN, performed by our group at Imperial College London. A still from this video can be seen in Figure 1. They were then asked whether they felt augmented reality would be of use as a navigation or training tool in robotic surgery. Once again, in this section, procedure-specific questions were displayed according to the operations the respondent performed. Only those respondents who felt augmented reality would be of use as a navigation tool were asked procedure-specific questions. Questions were
Survey design and administration The questionnaire was created using the LimeSurvey platform (www.limesurvey.com) and hosted on their website. All responses (both complete and incomplete) were included in the analysis. The questionnaire was dynamic with the questions displayed tailored to the respondents’ previous answers. When computing fractions or percentages the denominator was the number of respondents to answer the question, this number is variable due to the dynamic nature of the questionnaire. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Figure 1. A still taken from a video of augmented reality robot assisted partial nephrectomy performed. Here the tumour has been painted into the operative view allowing the surgeon to appreciate the relationship of the tumour with the surface of the kidney Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
The current and future use of imaging in urological robotic surgery
asked to establish where in these procedures they felt an augmented reality environment would be of use.
The majority of surgeons used ultrasound intraoperatively in RAPN (51%, 35/69) with a further 25% (17/69) reporting they would use it if they had access to a ‘drop-in’ ultrasound probe (Figure 2).
Results Desire for augmented reality
Demographics Of the 239 respondents completing the survey 117 were independently practising robotic surgeons and were therefore eligible for analysis. The majority of the surgeons had both trained (210/239, 87.9%) and worked in Europe (215/239, 90%). The median number of cases undertaken by those surgeons reporting their case volume was: 120 (6–2000), 9 (1–120) and 30 (1–270), for RALP, robot assisted cystectomy and RAPN, respectively.
Contemporary use of imaging in robotic surgery When enquiring about the use of imaging for surgical planning, the majority of surgeons (57%, 65/115) routinely viewed pre-operative imaging intra-operatively with only 9% (13/137) routinely capitalizing on the TilePro™ function in the console to display these images. When assessing the use of TilePro™ among surgeons who performed RAPN 13.8% (9/65) reported using the technology routinely. When assessing the imaging modalities that are available to a surgeon in theatre the majority of surgeons performing RALP (74%, 78/106)) reported using MRI with an additional 37% (39/106) reporting the use of CT for pre-operative staging and/or planning. For surgeons performing RAPN and robot-assisted cystectomy there was more of a consensus with 97% (68/70) and 95% (54/57) of surgeons, respectively, using CT for routine preoperative imaging (Table 1). Those surgeons performing RAPN were found to have the most diversity in the way they viewed pre-operative images in theatre, routinely viewing images in sagittal, coronal and axial slices (Table 2). The majority of these surgeons also viewed the images as 3D reconstructions (54%, 38/70). Table 1. Which preoperative imaging modalities do you use for diagnosis and surgical planning?
RALP (n = 106) RAPN (n = 70) Cystectomy (n = 57)
CT
MRI
USS
None
Other
39.8% (39) 97.1% (68) 94.7% (54)
73.5% (78) 42.9% (30) 26.3% (15)
2% (3) 17.1% (12) 1.8% (1)
15.1% (16) 0% (0) 1.8% (1)
8.4% (9) 2.9% (2) 5.3% (3)
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overall, 87% of respondents envisaged a role for augmented reality as a navigation tool in robotic surgery and 82% (88/107) felt that there was an additional role for the technology as a training tool. The greatest desire for augmented reality was among those surgeons performing RAPN with 86% (54/63) feeling the technology would be of use. The largest group of surgeons felt it would be useful in identifying tumour location, with significant numbers also feeling it would be efficacious in tumour resection (Figure 3). When enquiring about the potential for augmented reality in RALP, 79% (20/96) of respondents felt it would be of use during the procedure, with the largest group feeling it would be helpful for nerve sparing 65% (62/96) (Figure 4). The picture in cystectomy was similar with 74% (37/50) of surgeons believing augmented reality would be of use, with both nerve sparing and apical dissection highlighted as specific examples (40%, 20/50) (Figure 5). The majority also felt that it would be useful for lymph node dissection in both RALP and robot assisted cystectomy (55% (52/95) and 64% (32/50), respectively).
Discussion The results from this study suggest that the contemporary robotic surgeon views imaging as an important adjunct to operative practice. The way these images are being viewed is changing; although the majority of surgeons continue to view images as two-dimensional (2D) slices a significant minority have started to capitalize on 3D reconstructions to give them an improved appreciation of the patient’s anatomy. This study has highlighted surgeons’ willingness to take the next step in the utilization of imaging in operative planning, augmented reality, with 87% feeling it has a role to play in robotic surgery. Although there appears to be a considerable desire for augmented reality, the technology itself is still in its infancy with the limited evidence demonstrating clinical application reporting only qualitative results (3,7,11,12). There are a number of significant issues that need to be overcome before augmented reality can be adopted in routine clinical practice. The first of these is registration (the process by which two images are positioned in the same coordinate system such that the locations of Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
A. Hughes-Hallett et al. Table 2. How do you typically view preoperative imaging in the OR? 3D recons = three-dimensional reconstructions
RALP (n = 106) RAPN (n = 70) Cystectomy (n = 57)
Axial slices (n)
Coronal slices (n)
Sagittal slices (n)
3D recons. (n)
Do not view (n)
49.1% (52) 68.6% (48) 70.2% (40)
44.3% (47) 74.3% (52) 52.6% (30)
31.1% (33) 60% (42)
9.4% (10) 54.3% (38) 21.1% (12)
31.1% (33) 0% (0) 8.8% (5)
Figure 2. Chart demonstrating responses to the question – Do you use intraoperative ultrasound for robotic partial nephrectomy?
Figure 3. Chart demonstrating responses to the question – In robotic partial nephrectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay would be of assistance?
corresponding points align (13)). This process has been performed both manually and using automated algorithms with varying degrees of accuracy (2,14). The second issue pertains to the use of static pre-operative imaging in a dynamic operative environment; in order for the pre-operative imaging to be accurately registered it must be deformable. This problem remains as yet unresolved. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
50.9% (29)
Figure 4. Chart demonstrating responses to the question - In robotic prostatectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay would be of assistance?
Live intra-operative imaging circumvents the problems of tissue deformation and in RAPN 51% of surgeons reported already using intra-operative ultrasound to aid in tumour resection. Cheung and colleagues (9) have published an ex vivo study highlighting the potential for intra-operative ultrasound in augmented reality partial nephrectomy. They report the overlaying of ultrasound onto the operative scene to improve the surgeon’s appreciation of the subsurface tumour anatomy, this improvement in anatomical appreciation resulted in improved resection quality over conventional ultrasound guided resection (9) . Building on this work the first in vivo use of overlaid ultrasound in RAPN has recently been reported (10). Although good subjective feedback was received from the operating surgeon, the study was limited to a single case demonstrating feasibility and as such was not able to show an outcome benefit to the technology (10). RAPN also appears to be the area in which augmented reality would be most readily adopted with 86% of surgeons claiming they see a use for the technology during the procedure. Within this operation there are two obvious steps to augmentation, anatomical identification (in particular vessel identification to facilitate both routine ‘full clamping’ and for the identification of secondary and Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
The current and future use of imaging in urological robotic surgery
Figure 5. Chart demonstrating responses to the question – In robotic cystectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality overlay technology would be of assistance?
tertiary vessels for ‘selective clamping’ (15)) and tumour resection. These two phases have different requirements from an augmented reality platform; the first phase of identification requires a gross overview of the anatomy without the need for high levels of registration accuracy. Tumour resection, however, necessitates almost submillimetre accuracy in registration and needs the system to account for the dynamic intra-operative environment. The step of anatomical identification is amenable to the use of non-deformable 3D reconstructions of preoperative imaging while that of image-guided tumour resection is perhaps better suited to augmentation with live imaging such as ultrasound (2,9,16). For RALP and robot-assisted cystectomy the steps in which surgeons felt augmented reality would be of assistance were those of neurovascular bundle preservation and apical dissection. The relative, perceived, efficacy of augmented reality in these steps correlate with previous examinations of augmented reality in RALP (17,18). Although surgeon preference for utilizing augmented reality while undertaking robotic prostatectomy has been demonstrated, Thompson et al. failed to demonstrate an improvement in oncological outcomes in those patients undergoing AR RALP (18). Both nerve sparing and apical dissection require a high level of registration accuracy and a necessity for either live imaging or the deformation of pre-operative imaging to match the operative scene; achieving this level of registration accuracy is made more difficult by the mobilization of the prostate gland during the operation (17). These problems are equally applicable Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
to robot-assisted cystectomy. Although guidance systems have been proposed in the literature for RALP (3–5,12,17), none have achieved the level of accuracy required to provide assistance during nerve sparing. In addition, there are still imaging challenges that need to be overcome. Although multiparametric MRI has been shown to improve decision making in opting for a nerve sparing approach to RALP (19) the imaging is not yet able to reliably discern the exact location of the neurovascular bundle. This said, significant advances are being made with novel imaging modalities on the horizon that may allow for imaging of the neurovascular bundle in the near future (20).
Limitations The number of operations included represents a significant limitation of the study, had different index procedures been chosen different results may have been seen. This being said the index procedures selected were chosen as they represent the vast majority of uro-oncological robotic surgical practice, largely mitigating for this shortfall. Although the available ex vivo evidence suggests that introducing augmented reality operating environments into surgical practice would help to improve outcomes (9,21) the in vivo experience to date is limited to small volume case series reporting feasibility (2,3,14). To date no study has demonstrated an in vivo outcome advantage to augmented reality guidance. In addition to this Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
A. Hughes-Hallett et al.
limitation augmented reality has been demonstrated to increased rates of inattention blindness among surgeons suggesting there is a trade-off between increasing visual information and the surgeon’s ability to appreciate unexpected operative events (21).
Conclusions This survey shows the contemporary robotic surgeon to be comfortable with the use of imaging to aid intra-operative planning; furthermore it highlights a significant interest among the urological community in augmented reality operating platforms. Short- to medium-term development of augmented reality systems in robotic urology surgery would be best performed using RAPN as the index procedure. Not only was this the operation where surgeons saw the greatest potential benefits, but it may also be the operation where it is most easily achievable by capitalizing on the respective benefits of technologies the surgeons are already using; pre-operative CT for anatomical identification and intra-operative ultrasound for tumour resection.
Conflict of interest None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.
Appendix 1 Question Asked Demographics In which country do you usually practise? Which robotic procedures do you perform?* Current Imaging Practice What preoperative imaging modalities do you use for the staging and surgical planning in renal cancer? How do you typically view preoperative imaging in theatre for renal cancer surgery? Do you use intraoperative ultrasound for partial nephrectomy? What preoperative imaging modalities do you use for the staging and surgical planning in prostate cancer?
Question Type Single best answer Single best answer
Question Asked
Question Type
How do you typically view preoperative imaging in theatre for prostate cancer? Do you use intraoperative ultrasound for robotic partial nephrectomy? Which preoperative imaging modality do you use for staging and surgical planning in muscle invasive TCC? How do you typically view preoperative imaging in theatre for muscle invasive TCC? Do you routinely refer to preoperative imaging intraoperativley? Do you routinely use Tilepro intraoperativley? Augmented Reality Do you feel there is a role for augmented reality as a navigation tool in robotic surgery? Do you feel there is a role for augmented reality as a training tool in robotic surgery? In robotic partial nephrectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay technology would be of assistance? In robotic nephrectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay technology would be of assistance? In robotic prostatectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay technology would be of assistance? Would augmented reality guidance be of use n lymph node dissection in robotic prostatectomy? In robotic cystectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay technology would be of assistance? Would augmented reality guidance be of use in lymph node dissection in robotic cystectomy? *The relevant procedure related questions were displayed based on the answer to this question
Multiple choice Yes or No Multiple choice Multiple choice Yes or No Yes or No
Yes or No Yes or No Multiple choice
Multiple choice
Multiple choice
Yes or No
Multiple choice
Yes or No
Multiple choice
References Multiple choice
Yes or No Multiple choice
(Continues) Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appendix 1 . (Continued)
1. Foo J-L, Martinez-Escobar M, Juhnke B, et al. Evaluating mental workload of two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualization for anatomical structure localization. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2013; 23(1): 65–70. 2. Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ, et al. Augmented reality partial nephrectomy: examining the current status and future perspectives. Urology 2014; 83(2): 266–273. 3. Sridhar AN, Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, et al. Image-guided robotic interventions for prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2013; 10(8): 452–462. 4. Cohen D, Mayer E, Chen D, et al. Eddie’ Augmented reality image guidance in minimally invasive prostatectomy. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2010; 6367: 101–110. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
The current and future use of imaging in urological robotic surgery 5. Simpfendorfer T, Baumhauer M, Muller M, et al. Augmented reality visualization during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2011; 25(12): 1841–1845. 6. Teber D, Simpfendorfer T, Guven S, et al. In vitro evaluation of a soft-tissue navigation system for laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 2010; 24(9): 1487–1491. 7. Teber D, Guven S, Simpfendörfer T, et al. Augmented reality: a new tool to improve surgical accuracy during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy? Preliminary in vitro and in vivo results. Eur Urol 2009; 56(2): 332–338. 8. Pratt P, Mayer E, Vale J, et al. An effective visualisation and registration system for image-guided robotic partial nephrectomy. J Robot Surg 2012; 6(1): 23–31. 9. Cheung CL, Wedlake C, Moore J, et al. Fused video and ultrasound images for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: a phantom study. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2010; 13(Pt 3): 408–415. 10. Hughes-Hallett A, Pratt P, Mayer E, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound overlay in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: first clinical experience. Eur Urol 2014; 65(3): 671–672. 11. Nakamura K, Naya Y, Zenbutsu S, et al. Surgical navigation using three-dimensional computed tomography images fused intraoperatively with live video. J Endourol 2010; 24(4): 521–524. 12. Ukimura O, Gill IS. Imaging-assisted endoscopic surgery: Cleveland clinic experience. J Endourol 2008; 22(4): 803–809. 13. Altamar HO, Ong RE, Glisson CL, et al. Kidney deformation and intraprocedural registration: a study of elements of imageguided kidney surgery. J Endourol 2011; 25(3): 511–517.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
14. Nicolau S, Soler L, Mutter D, Marescaux J. Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surg Oncol 2011; 20(3): 189–201. 15. Ukimura O, Nakamoto M, Gill IS. Three-dimensional reconstruction of renovascular-tumor anatomy to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 61(1): 211–217. 16. Pratt P, Hughes-Hallett A, Di Marco A, et al. Multimodal reconstruction for image-guided interventions. In: Yang GZ, Darzi A (eds) Proceedings of the Hamlyn symposium on medical robotics: London. 2013; 59–61. 17. Mayer EK, Cohen D, Chen D, et al. Augmented reality image guidance in minimally invasive prostatectomy. Eur Urol Supp 2011; 10(2): 300. 18. Thompson S, Penney G, Billia M, et al. Design and evaluation of an image-guidance system for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013; 111(7): 1081–1090. 19. Panebianco V, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, et al. Use of multiparametric MR with neurovascular bundle evaluation to optimize the oncological and functional management of patients considered for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2012; 9(8): 2157–2166. 20. Rai S, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P, Tewari A. Advances in imaging the neurovascular bundle. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22(2): 88–96. 21. Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, et al. Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: the effect of augmented reality on attention. Surg Endosc 2013; 27(2): 454–461.
Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The current and future use of imaging in urological robotic surgery: a survey of the European Association of Robotic Urological Surgeons
Archie Hughes-Hallett1 Erik K. Mayer1* Philip Pratt2 Alex Mottrie3,4 Ara Darzi1,2 Justin Vale1 1
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
2
The Hamlyn Centre for Robotic Surgery, Imperial College, London, UK
3
Department of Urology, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium
4
O.L.V. Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, Aalst, Belgium *Correspondence to: Erik Mayer, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Marys Hospital Campus, London, W2 1NY, UK. Email: [email protected]
Abstract Background With the development of novel augmented reality operating platforms the way surgeons utilise imaging as a real-time adjunct to surgical technique is changing. Methods A questionnaire was distributed via the European Robotic Urological Society mailing list. The questionnaire had three themes: surgeon demographics, current use of imaging and potential uses of an augmented reality operating environment in robotic urological surgery. Results 117 of the 239 respondents (48.9%) were independently practising robotic surgeons. 74% of surgeons reported having imaging available in theatre for prostatectomy 97% for robotic partial nephrectomy and 95% cystectomy. 87% felt there was a role for augmented reality as a navigation tool in robotic surgery. Conclusions This survey has revealed the contemporary robotic surgeon to be comfortable in the use of imaging for intraoperative planning it also suggests that there is a desire for augmented reality platforms within the urological community. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords cystectomy
Augmented reality; Imaging; robotic; prostatectomy; partial nephrectomy;
Introduction
Accepted: 22 March 2014
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Since Röntgen first utilized X-rays to image the carpal bones of the human hand in 1895, medical imaging has evolved and is now able to provide a detailed representation of a patient’s intracorporeal anatomy, with recent advances now allowing for 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructions. The visualisation of anatomy in 3D has been shown to improve the ability to localize structures when compared with 2D with no change in the amount of cognitive loading (1). This has allowed imaging to move from a largely diagnostic tool to one that can be used for both diagnosis and operative planning.
A. Hughes-Hallett et al.
One potential interface to display 3D images, to maximize its potential as a tool for surgical guidance, is to overlay them onto the endoscopic operative scene (augmented reality). This addresses, in part, a criticism often levelled at robotic surgery, the loss of haptic feedback. Augmented reality has the potential to mitigate this sensory loss by enhancing the surgeons visual cues with information regarding subsurface anatomical relationships (2). Augmented reality surgery is in its infancy for intraabdominal procedures due in large part to the difficulties of applying static preoperative imaging to a constantly deforming intraoperative scene (3). There are case reports and ex vivo studies in the literature examining the technology in minimal access prostatectomy (3–6) and partial nephrectomy (7–10), but there remains a lack of evidence determining whether surgeons feel there is a role for the technology and if so for what procedures they feel it would be efficacious. This questionnaire-based study was designed to assess first, the pre- and intra-operative imaging modalities utilized by robotic urologists; second, the current use of imaging intraoperatively for surgical planning; and finally whether there is a desire for augmented reality among the robotic urological community.
Methods Recruitment A web based survey instrument was designed and sent out, as part of a larger survey, to members of the EAU robotic urology section (ERUS). Only independently practising robotic surgeons performing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and/or robotic cystectomy were included in the analysis, those surgeons exclusively performing other procedures were excluded. Respondents were offered no incentives to reply. All data collected was anonymous.
Survey content Demographics All respondents to the survey were asked in what country they practised and what robotic urological procedures they performed. In addition to what procedures they performed surgeons were asked to specify the number of cases they had undertaken for each procedure. Current imaging practice Procedure-specific questions in this group were displayed according to the operations the respondent performed. A summary of the questions can be seen in Appendix 1. Procedure-nonspecific questions were also asked. Participants were asked whether they routinely used the Tile Pro™ function of the da Vinci console (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) and whether they routinely viewed imaging intra-operatively. Augmented reality Before answering questions in this section, participants were invited to watch a video demonstrating an augmented reality platform during RAPN, performed by our group at Imperial College London. A still from this video can be seen in Figure 1. They were then asked whether they felt augmented reality would be of use as a navigation or training tool in robotic surgery. Once again, in this section, procedure-specific questions were displayed according to the operations the respondent performed. Only those respondents who felt augmented reality would be of use as a navigation tool were asked procedure-specific questions. Questions were
Survey design and administration The questionnaire was created using the LimeSurvey platform (www.limesurvey.com) and hosted on their website. All responses (both complete and incomplete) were included in the analysis. The questionnaire was dynamic with the questions displayed tailored to the respondents’ previous answers. When computing fractions or percentages the denominator was the number of respondents to answer the question, this number is variable due to the dynamic nature of the questionnaire. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Figure 1. A still taken from a video of augmented reality robot assisted partial nephrectomy performed. Here the tumour has been painted into the operative view allowing the surgeon to appreciate the relationship of the tumour with the surface of the kidney Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
The current and future use of imaging in urological robotic surgery
asked to establish where in these procedures they felt an augmented reality environment would be of use.
The majority of surgeons used ultrasound intraoperatively in RAPN (51%, 35/69) with a further 25% (17/69) reporting they would use it if they had access to a ‘drop-in’ ultrasound probe (Figure 2).
Results Desire for augmented reality
Demographics Of the 239 respondents completing the survey 117 were independently practising robotic surgeons and were therefore eligible for analysis. The majority of the surgeons had both trained (210/239, 87.9%) and worked in Europe (215/239, 90%). The median number of cases undertaken by those surgeons reporting their case volume was: 120 (6–2000), 9 (1–120) and 30 (1–270), for RALP, robot assisted cystectomy and RAPN, respectively.
Contemporary use of imaging in robotic surgery When enquiring about the use of imaging for surgical planning, the majority of surgeons (57%, 65/115) routinely viewed pre-operative imaging intra-operatively with only 9% (13/137) routinely capitalizing on the TilePro™ function in the console to display these images. When assessing the use of TilePro™ among surgeons who performed RAPN 13.8% (9/65) reported using the technology routinely. When assessing the imaging modalities that are available to a surgeon in theatre the majority of surgeons performing RALP (74%, 78/106)) reported using MRI with an additional 37% (39/106) reporting the use of CT for pre-operative staging and/or planning. For surgeons performing RAPN and robot-assisted cystectomy there was more of a consensus with 97% (68/70) and 95% (54/57) of surgeons, respectively, using CT for routine preoperative imaging (Table 1). Those surgeons performing RAPN were found to have the most diversity in the way they viewed pre-operative images in theatre, routinely viewing images in sagittal, coronal and axial slices (Table 2). The majority of these surgeons also viewed the images as 3D reconstructions (54%, 38/70). Table 1. Which preoperative imaging modalities do you use for diagnosis and surgical planning?
RALP (n = 106) RAPN (n = 70) Cystectomy (n = 57)
CT
MRI
USS
None
Other
39.8% (39) 97.1% (68) 94.7% (54)
73.5% (78) 42.9% (30) 26.3% (15)
2% (3) 17.1% (12) 1.8% (1)
15.1% (16) 0% (0) 1.8% (1)
8.4% (9) 2.9% (2) 5.3% (3)
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overall, 87% of respondents envisaged a role for augmented reality as a navigation tool in robotic surgery and 82% (88/107) felt that there was an additional role for the technology as a training tool. The greatest desire for augmented reality was among those surgeons performing RAPN with 86% (54/63) feeling the technology would be of use. The largest group of surgeons felt it would be useful in identifying tumour location, with significant numbers also feeling it would be efficacious in tumour resection (Figure 3). When enquiring about the potential for augmented reality in RALP, 79% (20/96) of respondents felt it would be of use during the procedure, with the largest group feeling it would be helpful for nerve sparing 65% (62/96) (Figure 4). The picture in cystectomy was similar with 74% (37/50) of surgeons believing augmented reality would be of use, with both nerve sparing and apical dissection highlighted as specific examples (40%, 20/50) (Figure 5). The majority also felt that it would be useful for lymph node dissection in both RALP and robot assisted cystectomy (55% (52/95) and 64% (32/50), respectively).
Discussion The results from this study suggest that the contemporary robotic surgeon views imaging as an important adjunct to operative practice. The way these images are being viewed is changing; although the majority of surgeons continue to view images as two-dimensional (2D) slices a significant minority have started to capitalize on 3D reconstructions to give them an improved appreciation of the patient’s anatomy. This study has highlighted surgeons’ willingness to take the next step in the utilization of imaging in operative planning, augmented reality, with 87% feeling it has a role to play in robotic surgery. Although there appears to be a considerable desire for augmented reality, the technology itself is still in its infancy with the limited evidence demonstrating clinical application reporting only qualitative results (3,7,11,12). There are a number of significant issues that need to be overcome before augmented reality can be adopted in routine clinical practice. The first of these is registration (the process by which two images are positioned in the same coordinate system such that the locations of Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
A. Hughes-Hallett et al. Table 2. How do you typically view preoperative imaging in the OR? 3D recons = three-dimensional reconstructions
RALP (n = 106) RAPN (n = 70) Cystectomy (n = 57)
Axial slices (n)
Coronal slices (n)
Sagittal slices (n)
3D recons. (n)
Do not view (n)
49.1% (52) 68.6% (48) 70.2% (40)
44.3% (47) 74.3% (52) 52.6% (30)
31.1% (33) 60% (42)
9.4% (10) 54.3% (38) 21.1% (12)
31.1% (33) 0% (0) 8.8% (5)
Figure 2. Chart demonstrating responses to the question – Do you use intraoperative ultrasound for robotic partial nephrectomy?
Figure 3. Chart demonstrating responses to the question – In robotic partial nephrectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay would be of assistance?
corresponding points align (13)). This process has been performed both manually and using automated algorithms with varying degrees of accuracy (2,14). The second issue pertains to the use of static pre-operative imaging in a dynamic operative environment; in order for the pre-operative imaging to be accurately registered it must be deformable. This problem remains as yet unresolved. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
50.9% (29)
Figure 4. Chart demonstrating responses to the question - In robotic prostatectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay would be of assistance?
Live intra-operative imaging circumvents the problems of tissue deformation and in RAPN 51% of surgeons reported already using intra-operative ultrasound to aid in tumour resection. Cheung and colleagues (9) have published an ex vivo study highlighting the potential for intra-operative ultrasound in augmented reality partial nephrectomy. They report the overlaying of ultrasound onto the operative scene to improve the surgeon’s appreciation of the subsurface tumour anatomy, this improvement in anatomical appreciation resulted in improved resection quality over conventional ultrasound guided resection (9) . Building on this work the first in vivo use of overlaid ultrasound in RAPN has recently been reported (10). Although good subjective feedback was received from the operating surgeon, the study was limited to a single case demonstrating feasibility and as such was not able to show an outcome benefit to the technology (10). RAPN also appears to be the area in which augmented reality would be most readily adopted with 86% of surgeons claiming they see a use for the technology during the procedure. Within this operation there are two obvious steps to augmentation, anatomical identification (in particular vessel identification to facilitate both routine ‘full clamping’ and for the identification of secondary and Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
The current and future use of imaging in urological robotic surgery
Figure 5. Chart demonstrating responses to the question – In robotic cystectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality overlay technology would be of assistance?
tertiary vessels for ‘selective clamping’ (15)) and tumour resection. These two phases have different requirements from an augmented reality platform; the first phase of identification requires a gross overview of the anatomy without the need for high levels of registration accuracy. Tumour resection, however, necessitates almost submillimetre accuracy in registration and needs the system to account for the dynamic intra-operative environment. The step of anatomical identification is amenable to the use of non-deformable 3D reconstructions of preoperative imaging while that of image-guided tumour resection is perhaps better suited to augmentation with live imaging such as ultrasound (2,9,16). For RALP and robot-assisted cystectomy the steps in which surgeons felt augmented reality would be of assistance were those of neurovascular bundle preservation and apical dissection. The relative, perceived, efficacy of augmented reality in these steps correlate with previous examinations of augmented reality in RALP (17,18). Although surgeon preference for utilizing augmented reality while undertaking robotic prostatectomy has been demonstrated, Thompson et al. failed to demonstrate an improvement in oncological outcomes in those patients undergoing AR RALP (18). Both nerve sparing and apical dissection require a high level of registration accuracy and a necessity for either live imaging or the deformation of pre-operative imaging to match the operative scene; achieving this level of registration accuracy is made more difficult by the mobilization of the prostate gland during the operation (17). These problems are equally applicable Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
to robot-assisted cystectomy. Although guidance systems have been proposed in the literature for RALP (3–5,12,17), none have achieved the level of accuracy required to provide assistance during nerve sparing. In addition, there are still imaging challenges that need to be overcome. Although multiparametric MRI has been shown to improve decision making in opting for a nerve sparing approach to RALP (19) the imaging is not yet able to reliably discern the exact location of the neurovascular bundle. This said, significant advances are being made with novel imaging modalities on the horizon that may allow for imaging of the neurovascular bundle in the near future (20).
Limitations The number of operations included represents a significant limitation of the study, had different index procedures been chosen different results may have been seen. This being said the index procedures selected were chosen as they represent the vast majority of uro-oncological robotic surgical practice, largely mitigating for this shortfall. Although the available ex vivo evidence suggests that introducing augmented reality operating environments into surgical practice would help to improve outcomes (9,21) the in vivo experience to date is limited to small volume case series reporting feasibility (2,3,14). To date no study has demonstrated an in vivo outcome advantage to augmented reality guidance. In addition to this Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
A. Hughes-Hallett et al.
limitation augmented reality has been demonstrated to increased rates of inattention blindness among surgeons suggesting there is a trade-off between increasing visual information and the surgeon’s ability to appreciate unexpected operative events (21).
Conclusions This survey shows the contemporary robotic surgeon to be comfortable with the use of imaging to aid intra-operative planning; furthermore it highlights a significant interest among the urological community in augmented reality operating platforms. Short- to medium-term development of augmented reality systems in robotic urology surgery would be best performed using RAPN as the index procedure. Not only was this the operation where surgeons saw the greatest potential benefits, but it may also be the operation where it is most easily achievable by capitalizing on the respective benefits of technologies the surgeons are already using; pre-operative CT for anatomical identification and intra-operative ultrasound for tumour resection.
Conflict of interest None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.
Appendix 1 Question Asked Demographics In which country do you usually practise? Which robotic procedures do you perform?* Current Imaging Practice What preoperative imaging modalities do you use for the staging and surgical planning in renal cancer? How do you typically view preoperative imaging in theatre for renal cancer surgery? Do you use intraoperative ultrasound for partial nephrectomy? What preoperative imaging modalities do you use for the staging and surgical planning in prostate cancer?
Question Type Single best answer Single best answer
Question Asked
Question Type
How do you typically view preoperative imaging in theatre for prostate cancer? Do you use intraoperative ultrasound for robotic partial nephrectomy? Which preoperative imaging modality do you use for staging and surgical planning in muscle invasive TCC? How do you typically view preoperative imaging in theatre for muscle invasive TCC? Do you routinely refer to preoperative imaging intraoperativley? Do you routinely use Tilepro intraoperativley? Augmented Reality Do you feel there is a role for augmented reality as a navigation tool in robotic surgery? Do you feel there is a role for augmented reality as a training tool in robotic surgery? In robotic partial nephrectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay technology would be of assistance? In robotic nephrectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay technology would be of assistance? In robotic prostatectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay technology would be of assistance? Would augmented reality guidance be of use n lymph node dissection in robotic prostatectomy? In robotic cystectomy which parts of the operation do you feel augmented reality image overlay technology would be of assistance? Would augmented reality guidance be of use in lymph node dissection in robotic cystectomy? *The relevant procedure related questions were displayed based on the answer to this question
Multiple choice Yes or No Multiple choice Multiple choice Yes or No Yes or No
Yes or No Yes or No Multiple choice
Multiple choice
Multiple choice
Yes or No
Multiple choice
Yes or No
Multiple choice
References Multiple choice
Yes or No Multiple choice
(Continues) Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appendix 1 . (Continued)
1. Foo J-L, Martinez-Escobar M, Juhnke B, et al. Evaluating mental workload of two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualization for anatomical structure localization. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2013; 23(1): 65–70. 2. Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ, et al. Augmented reality partial nephrectomy: examining the current status and future perspectives. Urology 2014; 83(2): 266–273. 3. Sridhar AN, Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, et al. Image-guided robotic interventions for prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2013; 10(8): 452–462. 4. Cohen D, Mayer E, Chen D, et al. Eddie’ Augmented reality image guidance in minimally invasive prostatectomy. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2010; 6367: 101–110. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
The current and future use of imaging in urological robotic surgery 5. Simpfendorfer T, Baumhauer M, Muller M, et al. Augmented reality visualization during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2011; 25(12): 1841–1845. 6. Teber D, Simpfendorfer T, Guven S, et al. In vitro evaluation of a soft-tissue navigation system for laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 2010; 24(9): 1487–1491. 7. Teber D, Guven S, Simpfendörfer T, et al. Augmented reality: a new tool to improve surgical accuracy during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy? Preliminary in vitro and in vivo results. Eur Urol 2009; 56(2): 332–338. 8. Pratt P, Mayer E, Vale J, et al. An effective visualisation and registration system for image-guided robotic partial nephrectomy. J Robot Surg 2012; 6(1): 23–31. 9. Cheung CL, Wedlake C, Moore J, et al. Fused video and ultrasound images for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: a phantom study. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2010; 13(Pt 3): 408–415. 10. Hughes-Hallett A, Pratt P, Mayer E, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound overlay in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: first clinical experience. Eur Urol 2014; 65(3): 671–672. 11. Nakamura K, Naya Y, Zenbutsu S, et al. Surgical navigation using three-dimensional computed tomography images fused intraoperatively with live video. J Endourol 2010; 24(4): 521–524. 12. Ukimura O, Gill IS. Imaging-assisted endoscopic surgery: Cleveland clinic experience. J Endourol 2008; 22(4): 803–809. 13. Altamar HO, Ong RE, Glisson CL, et al. Kidney deformation and intraprocedural registration: a study of elements of imageguided kidney surgery. J Endourol 2011; 25(3): 511–517.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
14. Nicolau S, Soler L, Mutter D, Marescaux J. Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surg Oncol 2011; 20(3): 189–201. 15. Ukimura O, Nakamoto M, Gill IS. Three-dimensional reconstruction of renovascular-tumor anatomy to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 61(1): 211–217. 16. Pratt P, Hughes-Hallett A, Di Marco A, et al. Multimodal reconstruction for image-guided interventions. In: Yang GZ, Darzi A (eds) Proceedings of the Hamlyn symposium on medical robotics: London. 2013; 59–61. 17. Mayer EK, Cohen D, Chen D, et al. Augmented reality image guidance in minimally invasive prostatectomy. Eur Urol Supp 2011; 10(2): 300. 18. Thompson S, Penney G, Billia M, et al. Design and evaluation of an image-guidance system for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013; 111(7): 1081–1090. 19. Panebianco V, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, et al. Use of multiparametric MR with neurovascular bundle evaluation to optimize the oncological and functional management of patients considered for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2012; 9(8): 2157–2166. 20. Rai S, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P, Tewari A. Advances in imaging the neurovascular bundle. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22(2): 88–96. 21. Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, et al. Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: the effect of augmented reality on attention. Surg Endosc 2013; 27(2): 454–461.
Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2014) DOI: 10.1002/rcs
