PubMed · 819784
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H Habicht. 1975-08-01. [Tropical surgery].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/819784/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: Effective utilization of an optical tracking system for image-based surgical guidance requires optimal placement of the dynamic reference frame (DRF) with respect to the tracking camera. Unlike other studies that measure the overall accuracy of a particular navigation system, this study investigates the precision of one component of the navigation system: the optical tracking system (OTS). The precision of OTS measurements is quantified as jitter. By measuring jitter, one can better understand how system inaccuracies depend on the position of the DRF with respect to the camera. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Both FlashPointtrade mark (Image Guided Technologies, Inc., Boulder, Colorado) and Polaristrade mark (Northern Digital Inc., Ontario, Canada) optical tracking systems were tested in five different camera and DRF configurations. A linear testing apparatus with a software interface was designed to facilitate data collection. Jitter measurements were collected over a single quadrant within the camera viewing volume, as symmetry was assumed about the horizontal and vertical axes. RESULTS: Excluding the highest 5% of jitter, the FlashPoint cameras had an RMS jitter range of 0.028 +/- 0.012 mm for the 300 mm model, 0.051 +/- 0.038 mm for the 580 mm model, and 0.059 +/- 0.047 mm for the 1 m model. The Polaris camera had an RMS jitter range of 0.058 +/- 0.037 mm with an active DRF and 0.115 +/- 0.075 mm with a passive DRF. CONCLUSION: Both FlashPoint and Polaris have jitter less than 0.11 mm, although the error distributions differ significantly. Total jitter for all systems is dominated by the component measured in the axis directed away from the camera.
This paper presents telemedicine as an extension of a teleradiology framework through tools for virtual surgery. To classify the described methods and applications, the research field of virtual reality (VR) is broadly reviewed. Differences with respect to technical equipment, methodological requirements and areas of application are pointed out. Desktop VR, augmented reality, and virtual reality are differentiated and discussed in some typical contexts of diagnostic support, surgical planning, therapeutic procedures, simulation and training. Visualization techniques are compared as a prerequisite for virtual reality and assigned to distinct levels of immersion. The advantage of a hybrid visualization kernel is emphasized with respect to the desktop VR applications that are subsequently shown. Moreover, software design aspects are considered by outlining functional openness in the architecture of the host system. Here, a teleradiology workstation was extended by dedicated tools for surgical planning through a plug-in mechanism. Examples of recent areas of application are introduced such as liver tumor resection planning, diagnostic support in heart surgery, and craniofacial surgery planning. In the future, surgical planning systems will become more important. They will benefit from improvements in image acquisition and communication, new image processing approaches, and techniques for data presentation. This will facilitate preoperative planning and intraoperative applications.