Evaluation Metrics for Augmented Reality in Neurosurgical Preoperative Planning, Surgical Navigation, and Surgical Treatment Guidance: A Systematic Review

Publication date

2024-05

Authors

Kos, Tessa M
Colombo, Elisa
Bartels, L WISNI 0000000388733745
Robe, PierreORCID 0000-0001-7845-6196
van Doormaal, Tristan P.C.ORCID 0000-0002-6299-3859ISNI 0000000389942725

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article

Collections

Open Access logo

License

cc_by

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent years have shown an advancement in the development of augmented reality (AR) technologies for preoperative visualization, surgical navigation, and intraoperative guidance for neurosurgery. However, proving added value for AR in clinical practice is challenging, partly because of a lack of standardized evaluation metrics. We performed a systematic review to provide an overview of the reported evaluation metrics for AR technologies in neurosurgical practice and to establish a foundation for assessment and comparison of such technologies. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched systematically for publications on assessment of AR for cranial neurosurgery on September 22, 2022. The findings were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 830 publications; 114 were screened full text, and 80 were included for analysis. Among the included studies, 5% dealt with preoperative visualization using AR, with user perception as the most frequently reported metric. The majority (75%) researched AR technology for surgical navigation, with registration accuracy, clinical outcome, and time measurements as the most frequently reported metrics. In addition, 20% studied the use of AR for intraoperative guidance, with registration accuracy, task outcome, and user perception as the most frequently reported metrics. CONCLUSION: For quality benchmarking of AR technologies in neurosurgery, evaluation metrics should be specific to the risk profile and clinical objectives of the technology. A key focus should be on using validated questionnaires to assess user perception; ensuring clear and unambiguous reporting of registration accuracy, precision, robustness, and system stability; and accurately measuring task performance in clinical studies. We provided an overview suggesting which evaluation metrics to use per AR application and innovation phase, aiming to improve the assessment of added value of AR for neurosurgical practice and to facilitate the integration in the clinical workflow.

Keywords

3D visualization, Augmented reality, Evaluation metrics, Mixed reality, Neurosurgery, Journal Article

Citation

Kos, T M, Colombo, E, Bartels, L W, Robe, P A & van Doormaal, T P C 2024, 'Evaluation Metrics for Augmented Reality in Neurosurgical Preoperative Planning, Surgical Navigation, and Surgical Treatment Guidance : A Systematic Review', Operative Neurosurgery, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 491-501. https://doi.org/10.1227/ons.0000000000001009