Satoru Morita
   Department   School of Medicine(Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital), School of Medicine
   Position   Assistant Professor
Article types Original article
Language English
Peer review Peer reviewed
Title Learning effectiveness of using augmented reality technology in central venous access procedure: an experiment using phantom and head-mounted display.
Journal Formal name:International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery
Abbreviation:Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg
ISSN code:18616429/18616410
Domestic / ForeginForegin
Volume, Issue, Page 16(6),pp.1069-1074
Author and coauthor SUZUKI Kazufumi†, MORITA Satoru, ENDO Kenji, YAMAMOTO Takahiro, FUJII Shuhei, OHYA Jun, MASAMUNE Ken, SAKAI Shuji
Authorship 2nd author
Publication date 2021/04/16
Summary PURPOSE:Augmented reality (AR) technology improves the learning process in interventional radiology. This study hypothesized that using AR to train for central venous access is superior to using ultrasound alone.METHODS:This study used an AR central venous catheterization phantom with an internal jugular vein (IJV) and subclavian vein (SCV) made of resin body and soft tubing. Ten radiologists attempted to punctuate, using needle placement simulation, under three conditions (ultrasound-, augmented reality-, and ultrasound and AR-guided methods; US-only, AR-only, and US+AR, respectively) using a smart-glass device (HoloLens, Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Subjective (anatomical understanding and self-confidence for procedure) and objective evaluations (optimized needle position and time) were recorded for each condition.RESULTS:The subjective IJV evaluation showed no difference among the guiding methods (p = 0.26 and p = 0.07 for anatomical understanding and self-confidence for procedure, respectively). Conversely, there were significant improvements in subjective and objective evaluations for SCV using the AR-only and US+AR methods (p < 0.05) and US+AR method (p < 0.05), respectively. The AR-only method reduced the time required to fix the needle position to puncture the SCV (p < 0.05), but its objective evaluation did not improve compared with the US-only method (p = 0.20).CONCLUSION:Adding the AR-guided method to the US-guided method improved subjective and objective evaluations in the SVC procedure. The AR technology-assisted training may be more beneficial for use in difficult procedures. Though the AR-only method saved time, no time saving is expected with AR+US method.
DOI 10.1007/s11548-021-02365-6
PMID 33864188