Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36(04): 261-270
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401832
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Use of Augmented Reality in Reconstructive Microsurgery: A Systematic Review and Development of the Augmented Reality Microsurgery Score

Yasser Al Omran
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham Children's Hospital Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham, United Kingdom
,
Ali Abdall-Razak
2   Imperial College School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom
,
Catrin Sohrabi 
3   Academic Plastic Surgery Group, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
,
Tiffanie-Marie Borg
3   Academic Plastic Surgery Group, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
,
Hayat Nadama
4   University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Nottingham, United Kingdom
,
Nader Ghassemi
5   Department of Surgery, University Hospital North Midlands NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
,
Khine Oo
6   Keele University School of Medicine, Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom
,
Ali M. Ghanem
3   Academic Plastic Surgery Group, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

19 July 2019

28 October 2019

Publication Date:
19 December 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Augmented reality (AR) uses a set of technologies that overlays digital information into the real world, giving the user access to both digital and real-world environments in congruity. AR may be specifically fruitful in reconstructive microsurgery due to the dynamic nature of surgeries performed and the small structures encountered in these operations. The aim of this study was to conduct a high-quality preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) compliant systematic review evaluating the use of AR in reconstructive microsurgery.

Methods A systematic literature search of Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed using appropriate search terms to identify all applications of AR in reconstructive microsurgery from inception to December 2018. Articles that did not meet the objectives of the study were excluded. A qualitative synthesis was performed of those articles that met the inclusion criteria.

Results A total of 686 articles were identified from title and abstract review. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of the studies used head-mounted displays, one study used a display monitor, and one study demonstrated AR using spatial navigation technology. The augmented reality microsurgery score was developed and applied to each of the AR technologies and scores ranged from 8 to 12.

Conclusion Although higher quality studies reviewing the use of AR in reconstructive microsurgery is needed, the feasibility of AR in reconstructive microsurgery has been demonstrated across different subspecialties of plastic surgery. AR applications, that are reproducible, user-friendly, and have clear benefit to the surgeon and patient, have the greatest potential utility. Further research is required to validate its use and overcome the barriers to its implementation.

Keywords

augmented reality - reconstruction - technology
 

  • References

  • 1 Fida B, Cutolo F, di Franco G, Ferrari M, Ferrari V. Augmented reality in open surgery. Updates Surg 2018; 70 (03) 389-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wong K, Yee HM, Xavier BA, Grillone GA. Applications of augmented reality in otolaryngology: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 2018; 019459981879647
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kim Y, Kim H, Kim YO. Virtual reality and augmented reality in plastic surgery: a review. Arch Plast Surg 2017; 44 (03) 179-187
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ramachandran S, Ghanem AM, Myers SR. Assessment of microsurgery competency-where are we now?. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (05) 406-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Clark AD, Barone DG, Candy N. , et al. The effect of 3-dimensional simulation on neurosurgical skill acquisition and surgical performance: a review of the literature. J Surg Educ 2017; 74 (05) 828-836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sayadi LR, Naides A, Eng M. , et al. The new frontier: a review of augmented reality and virtual reality in plastic surgery. Aesthetic Surg J 2019; 39 (09) 1007-1016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. , et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Higgins JPTGS. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. (updated March 2011). Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook . Accessed November 27, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Murad MH, Sultan S, Haffar S, Bazerbachi F. Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ Evid Based Med 2018; 23 (02) 60-63
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Bosc R, Fitoussi A, Pigneur F, Tacher V, Hersant B, Meningaud J-P. [Identification of perforating vessels by augmented reality: application for the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2017; 62 (04) 336-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pratt P, Ives M, Lawton G. , et al. Through the HoloLens™ looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3D vascular models with perforating vessels. Eur Radiol Exp 2018; 2 (01) 2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Greenfield MJ, Luck J, Billingsley ML. , et al. Demonstration of the effectiveness of augmented reality telesurgery in complex hand reconstruction in Gaza. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (03) e1708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zhu M, Liu F, Zhou C. , et al. Does intraoperative navigation improve the accuracy of mandibular angle osteotomy: comparison between augmented reality navigation, individualised templates and free-hand techniques. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (08) 1188-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sayadi LR, Chopan M, Maguire K. , et al. A novel innovation for surgical flap markings using projected stencils. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (03) 827-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zemirline A, Agnus V, Soler L, Mathoulin CL, Obdeijn M, Liverneaux PA. Augmented reality-based navigation system for wrist arthroscopy: feasibility. J Wrist Surg 2013; 2 (04) 294-298
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Qu M, Hou Y, Xu Y. , et al. Precise positioning of an intraoral distractor using augmented reality in patients with hemifacial microsomia. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (01) 106-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lin L, Shi Y, Tan A. , et al. Mandibular angle split osteotomy based on a novel augmented reality navigation using specialized robot-assisted arms--A feasibility study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016; 44 (02) 215-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chimenti PC, Mitten DJ. Google glass as an alternative to standard fluoroscopic visualization for percutaneous fixation of hand fractures: a pilot study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (02) 328-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nishimoto S, Tonooka M, Fujita K. , et al. An augmented reality system in lymphatico-venous anastomosis surgery. J Surg Case Rep 2016; 2016 (05) rjw047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bigdeli AK, Gazyakan E, Schmidt VJ. , et al. Indocyanine green fluorescence for free-flap perfusion imaging revisited: advanced decision making by virtual perfusion reality in visionsense fusion imaging angiography. Surg Innov 2016; 23 (03) 249-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schreiber JE, Stern CS, Garfein ES, Weichman KE, Tepper OM. A novel approach to surgical markings based on a topographic map and a projected three-dimensional image. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (05) 855e-859e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mitsuno D, Ueda K, Itamiya T, Nuri T, Otsuki Y. Intraoperative evaluation of body surface improvement by an augmented reality system that a clinician can modify. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (08) e1432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vávra P, Roman J, Zonča P. , et al. Recent development of augmented reality in surgery: a review. J Healthc Eng 2017; 2017: 4574172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bosc R, Fitoussi A, Hersant B, Dao TH, Meningaud JP. Intraoperative augmented reality with heads-up displays in maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review of the literature and a classification of relevant technologies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 48 (01) 132-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pafitanis G, Raveendran M, Myers S, Ghanem AM. Flowmetry evolution in microvascular surgery: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70 (09) 1242-1251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pluye P, Gagnon M-P, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 2009; 46 (04) 529-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cifuentes IJ, Dagnino BL, Salisbury MC, Perez ME, Ortega C, Maldonado D. Augmented reality and dynamic infrared thermography for perforator mapping in the anterolateral thigh. Arch Plast Surg 2018; 45 (03) 284-288
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kawal T, Sahadev R, Srinivasan A. , et al. Robotic surgery in infants and children: an argument for smaller and fewer incisions. World J Urol 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Selber JC. Can I make robotic surgery make sense in my practice?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (03) 781e-792e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, Vescan AD, Witterick IJ, Irish JC. Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: the effect of augmented reality on attention. Surg Endosc 2013; 27 (02) 454-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hupp JR. Advanced technology--hammers looking for nails. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 71 (03) 465-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Davis CR, Rosenfield LK. Looking at plastic surgery through Google Glass: part 1. Systematic review of Google Glass evidence and the first plastic surgical procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (03) 918-928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Haynes CL, Cook GA, Jones MA. Legal and ethical considerations in processing patient-identifiable data without patient consent: lessons learnt from developing a disease register. J Med Ethics 2007; 33 (05) 302-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Vella-Baldacchino M, Thavayogan R, Orgill DP. ; STROCSS Group. The STROCSS statement: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg 2017; 46: 198-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Farwana R, Koshy K, Fowler AJ, Orgill DP. ; PROCESS Group. The PROCESS 2018 statement: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines. Int J Surg 2018; 60: 279-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kapoor MC. Types of studies and research design. Indian J Anaesth 2016; 60 (09) 626-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Lee JY. The da Vinci(®) Surgical System overcomes innate hand dominance. J Endourol 2011; 25 (08) 1385-1388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Weinstein GS. Transoral robotic surgery and the standard of care. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 97 (01) 4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Selber JC. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy: the next step in the evolution of minimally invasive breast surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26 (01) 10-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Diana M, Marescaux J. Robotic surgery. Br J Surg 2015; 102 (02) e15-e28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Zirafa CC, Romano G, Key TH, Davini F, Melfi F. The evolution of robotic thoracic surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2019; 8 (02) 210-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Nadjmi N. transoral robotic cleft palate surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2016; 53 (03) 326-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar