Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Content Type
      Content Type
      Clear All
      Content Type
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
42,138 result(s) for "EVALUATION TECHNIQUES"
Sort by:
Augmented reality visualization in brain lesions: a prospective randomized controlled evaluation of its potential and current limitations in navigated microneurosurgery
BackgroundAugmented reality (AR) has the potential to support complex neurosurgical interventions by including visual information seamlessly. This study examines intraoperative visualization parameters and clinical impact of AR in brain tumor surgery.MethodsFifty-five intracranial lesions, operated either with AR-navigated microscope (n = 39) or conventional neuronavigation (n = 16) after randomization, have been included prospectively. Surgical resection time, duration/type/mode of AR, displayed objects (n, type), pointer-based navigation checks (n), usability of control, quality indicators, and overall surgical usefulness of AR have been assessed.ResultsAR display has been used in 44.4% of resection time. Predominant AR type was navigation view (75.7%), followed by target volumes (20.1%). Predominant AR mode was picture-in-picture (PiP) (72.5%), followed by 23.3% overlay display. In 43.6% of cases, vision of important anatomical structures has been partially or entirely blocked by AR information. A total of 7.7% of cases used MRI navigation only, 30.8% used one, 23.1% used two, and 38.5% used three or more object segmentations in AR navigation. A total of 66.7% of surgeons found AR visualization helpful in the individual surgical case. AR depth information and accuracy have been rated acceptable (median 3.0 vs. median 5.0 in conventional neuronavigation). The mean utilization of the navigation pointer was 2.6 × /resection hour (AR) vs. 9.7 × /resection hour (neuronavigation); navigation effort was significantly reduced in AR (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe main benefit of HUD-based AR visualization in brain tumor surgery is the integrated continuous display allowing for pointer-less navigation. Navigation view (PiP) provides the highest usability while blocking the operative field less frequently. Visualization quality will benefit from improvements in registration accuracy and depth impression.German clinical trials registration number.DRKS00016955.
Monitor-based exoscopic 3D4k neurosurgical interventions: a two-phase prospective-randomized clinical evaluation of a novel hybrid device
BackgroundPromoting a disruptive innovation in microsurgery, exoscopes promise alleviation of physical strain and improved image quality through digital visualization during microneurosurgical interventions. This study investigates the impact of a novel 3D4k hybrid exoscope (i.e., combining digital and optical visualization) on surgical performance and team workflow in preclinical and clinical neurosurgical settings.MethodsA pre-clinical workshop setting has been developed to assess usability and implementability through skill-based scenarios (neurosurgical participants n = 12). An intraoperative exploration in head and spine surgery (n = 9) and a randomized clinical study comparing ocular and monitor mode in supratentorial brain tumor cases (n = 20) followed within 12 months. Setup, procedure, case characteristics, surgical performance, and user experience have been analyzed for both ocular group (OG) and monitor group (MG).ResultsBrain tumor cases using frontal, frontoparietal, or temporal approaches have been identified as favorable use cases for introducing exoscopic neurosurgery. Mean monitor distance and angle were 180 cm and 10°. Surgical ergonomics when sitting improved significantly in MG compared with OG (P = .03). Hand-eye coordination required familiarization in MG. Preclinical data showed a positive correlation between lateral camera inclination and impact on hand-eye coordination (rs = 0.756, P = .01). There was no significant added surgical time in MG. Image quality in current generation 3D4k monitors has been rated inferior to optic visualization yet awaits updates.ConclusionsThe hybrid exoscopic device can be integrated into established neurosurgical workflows. Currently, exoscopic interventions seem most suited for cranial tumor surgery in lesions that are not deep-seated. Ergonomics improve in monitor mode compared to conventional microsurgery.
Digital imaging in popular cinema
This book discusses how digital imaging can mimic, transform, shape and generate both fantastical and mundane objects and phenomena from scratch, and how our cultural ideas about digital imaging can influence meaning within a film, a scene or even a single shot.
Ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery: comparative analysis of complications and outcome for three commonly used models
IntroductionUltrasonic aspiration (UA) devices are commonly used for resecting intracranial tumors, as they allow for internal debulking of large tumors, hereby avoiding damage to adjacent brain tissue during the dissection. Little is known about their comparative safety profiles.Methods and materialsWe analyzed data from a prospective patient registry. Procedures using one of the following UA models were included: Integra® CUSA, Söring®, and Stryker® Sonopet. The primary endpoint was morbidity at discharge, defined as significant worsening on the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Secondary endpoints included morbidity and mortality until 3 months postoperative (M3), occurrence, type, and etiology of complications.ResultsOf n = 1028 procedures, the CUSA was used in n = 354 (34.4 %), the Söring in n = 461 (44.8 %), and the Sonopet in n = 213 (20.7 %). There was some heterogeneity of study groups. In multivariable analysis, patients in the Söring (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.29; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.80–2.08; p = 0.299), and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.46–1.61; p = 0.645) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience discharge morbidity. At M3, patients in the Söring (aOR, 1.20; 95 % CI, 0.78–1.86; p = 0.415) and Sonopet group (aOR, 0.53; 95 % CI, 0.26–1.08; p = 0.080) were as likely as patients in the CUSA group to experience morbidity. There were also no differences for M3 morbidity in subgroup analyses for gliomas, meningiomas, and metastases. The grade (p = 0.608) and etiology (p = 0.849) of postoperative complications were similar.ConclusionsNeurosurgeons select UA types with regard to certain case-specific characteristics. The safety profiles of three commonly used UA types appear mostly similar.
sEVD—smartphone-navigated placement of external ventricular drains
BackgroundCurrently, the trajectory for insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD) is mainly determined using anatomical landmarks. However, non-assisted implantations frequently require multiple attempts and are associated with EVD malpositioning and complications. The authors evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of a novel smartphone-guided, angle-adjusted technique for assisted implantations of an EVD (sEVD) in both a human artificial head model and a cadaveric head.MethodsAfter computed tomography (CT), optimal insertion angles and lengths of intracranial trajectories of the EVDs were determined. A smartphone was calibrated to the mid-cranial sagittal line. Twenty EVDs were placed using both the premeasured data and smartphone-adjusted insertion angles, targeting the center of the ipsilateral ventricular frontal horn. The EVD positions were verified with post-interventional CT.ResultsAll 20 sEVDs (head model, 8/20; cadaveric head, 12/20) showed accurate placement in the ipsilateral ventricle. The sEVD tip locations showed a mean target deviation of 1.73° corresponding to 12 mm in the plastic head model, and 3.45° corresponding to 33 mm in the cadaveric head. The mean duration of preoperative measurements on CT data was 3 min, whereas sterile packing, smartphone calibration, drilling, and implantation required 9 min on average.ConclusionsBy implementation of an innovative navigation technique, a conventional smartphone was used as a protractor for the insertion of EVDs. Our ex vivo data suggest that smartphone-guided EVD placement offers a precise, rapidly applicable, and patient-individualized freehand technique based on a standard procedure with a simple, cheap, and widely available multifunctional device.
Intraoperative fluorescence diagnosis in the brain: a systematic review and suggestions for future standards on reporting diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility
BackgroundSurgery for gliomas is often confounded by difficulties in distinguishing tumor from surrounding normal brain. For better discrimination, intraoperative optical imaging methods using fluorescent dyes are currently being explored. Understandably, such methods require the demonstration of a high degree of diagnostic accuracy and clinical benefit. Currently, clinical utility is determined by tissue biopsies which are correlated to optical signals, and quantified using measures such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. In addition, surgical outcomes, such as extent of resection rates and/or survival (progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)) have been measured. These assessments, however, potentially involve multiple biases and confounders, which have to be minimized to ensure reproducibility, generalizability and comparability of test results. Test should aim at having a high internal and external validity. The objective of this article is to analyze how diagnostic accuracy and outcomes are utilized in available studies describing intraoperative imaging and furthermore, to derive recommendations for reliable and reproducible evaluations.MethodsA review of the literature was performed for assessing the use of measures of diagnostic accuracy and outcomes of intraoperative optical imaging methods. From these data, we derive recommendations for designing and reporting future studies.ResultsAvailable literature indicates that potential confounders and biases for reporting the diagnostic accuracy and usefulness of intraoperative optical imaging methods are seldom accounted for. Furthermore, methods for bias reduction are rarely used nor reported.ConclusionsDetailed, transparent, and uniform reporting on diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative imaging methods is necessary. In the absence of such reporting, studies will not be comparable or reproducible. Future studies should consider some of the recommendations given here.
Evaluation of the precision of navigation-assisted endoscopy according to the navigation tool setup and the type of endoscopes
ObjectPreoperative image-based neuronavigation-assisted endoscopy during intracranial procedures is gaining great interest. This study aimed to analyze the precision of navigation-assisted endoscopy according to the navigation setup, the type of optic and its working angulation.MethodsA custom-made box with four screws was referenced. The navigation-assisted endoscope was aligned on the screws (targets). The precision on the navigation screen was defined as the virtual distance-to-target between the tip of the endoscope and the center of the screws. Three modifiers were assessed: (1) the distance D between the box and the reference array (CLOSE 13 cm – MIDDLE 30 cm – FAR 53 cm), (2) the distance between the tip of the endoscope and the navigation array on the endoscope (close 5 cm – middle 10 cm – far 20 cm), (3) the working angulation of the endoscope (0°-endoscope and 30°-endoscope angled at 90° and 45° with the box).ResultsThe median precision was 1.3 mm (Q1: 1.1; Q3: 1.7) with the best setting CLOSE/close. The best setting in surgical condition (CLOSE/far) showed a distance-to-target of 2.3 mm (Q1: 1.9; Q3: 2.5). The distance D was correlated to the precision (Spearman rho = 0.82), but not the distance d (Spearman rho = 0.04). The type of optic and its angulation with the box were also correlated to the precision (Spearman rho =  − 0.37). The best setting was the use of a 30°-endoscope angled at 45° (1.4 mm (Q1: 1.0; Q3: 1.9)).ConclusionNavigated-assisted endoscopy is feasible and offers a good precision. The navigation setup should be optimized, reducing the risk of inadvertent perifocal damage.
The IDEAL framework in neurosurgery: a bibliometric analysis
BackgroundThe Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) framework was created to provide a structured way for assessing and evaluating novel surgical techniques and devices.ObjectivesThe aim of this paper was to investigate the utilization of the IDEAL framework within neurosurgery, and to identify factors influencing implementation.MethodsA bibliometric analysis of the 7 key IDEAL papers on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases (2009–2019) was performed. A second journal-specific search then identified additional papers citing the IDEAL framework. Publications identified were screened by two independent reviewers to select neurosurgery-specific articles.ResultsThe citation search identified 1336 articles. The journal search identified another 16 articles. Following deduplication and review, 51 relevant articles remained; 14 primary papers (27%) and 37 secondary papers (73%). Of the primary papers, 5 (36%) papers applied the IDEAL framework to their research correctly; two were aligned to the pre-IDEAL stage, one to the Idea and Development stages, and two to the Exploration stage. Of the secondary papers, 21 (57%) explicitly discussed the IDEAL framework. Eighteen (86%) of these were supportive of implementing the framework, while one was not, and two were neutral.ConclusionThe adoption of the IDEAL framework in neurosurgery has been slow, particularly for early-stage neurosurgical techniques and inventions. However, the largely positive reviews in secondary literature suggest potential for increased use that may be achieved with education and publicity.