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.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) and knee joint distraction (KJD) are treatments to unload the osteoarthritic (OA) joint with proven success in postponing a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While both treatments demonstrate joint repair, there is limited information about the quality of the regenerated tissue. Therefore, the change in quality of the repaired cartilaginous tissue after KJD and HTO was studied using delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage (dGEMRIC). DESIGN: Forty patients (20 KJD and 20 HTO), treated for medial tibiofemoral OA, were included in this study. Radiographic outcomes, clinical characteristics, and cartilage quality were evaluated at baseline, and at 1- and 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Two years after KJD treatment, clear clinical improvement was observed. Moreover, a statistically significant increased medial (Δ 0.99 mm), minimal (Δ 1.04 mm), and mean (Δ 0.68 mm) radiographic joint space width (JSW) was demonstrated. Likewise, medial (Δ 1.03 mm), minimal (Δ 0.72 mm), and mean (Δ 0.46 mm) JSW were statistically significantly increased on radiographs after HTO. There was on average no statistically significant change in dGEMRIC indices over two years and no difference between treatments. Yet there seemed to be a clinically relevant, positive relation between increase in cartilage quality and patients' experienced clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of knee OA by either HTO or KJD leads to clinical benefit, and an increase in cartilage thickness on weightbearing radiographs for over 2 years posttreatment. This cartilaginous tissue was on average not different from baseline, as determined by dGEMRIC, whereas changes in quality at the individual level correlated with clinical benefit.
