PDF herunterladen
J Reconstr Microsurg
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1788548
Original Article

HoloDIEP—Faster and More Accurate Intraoperative DIEA Perforator Mapping Using a Novel Mixed Reality Tool

Fabian N. Necker 
1   Department of Radiology, Stanford IMMERS (Incubator for Medical Mixed and Extended Reality at Stanford), Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
2   Digital Anatomy Lab, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Functional and Clinical Anatomy, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany
3   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
,
David J. Cholok 
3   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
,
Marc J. Fischer
1   Department of Radiology, Stanford IMMERS (Incubator for Medical Mixed and Extended Reality at Stanford), Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
,
Mohammed S. Shaheen
3   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
,
Kyle Gifford 
4   Department of Radiology, 3D and Quantitative Imaging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
,
Michael Januszyk 
3   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
,
Christoph W. Leuze 
1   Department of Radiology, Stanford IMMERS (Incubator for Medical Mixed and Extended Reality at Stanford), Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
,
Michael Scholz 
2   Digital Anatomy Lab, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Functional and Clinical Anatomy, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany
,
Bruce L. Daniel 
1   Department of Radiology, Stanford IMMERS (Incubator for Medical Mixed and Extended Reality at Stanford), Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
,
Arash Momeni 
3   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
› Institutsangaben Funding Information F. Necker and Dr. M. Scholz have been funded by BaCaTeC - Bavaria California Technology Center, Erlangen, Germany (funded by the State of Bavaria, Bavarian State Ministry for Science and Art). Project title: Patient-specific visualization of (vascular) anatomy in mixed reality for interventional and surgical planning; start of funding: 1 January 2022. F. Necker is a recipient of a scholarship at the Graduate Center of the Bavarian Research Institute for Digital Transformation - bidt (Munich, Germany) funded by the Bavarian State Ministry for Science and Art. There were no other sources of funding for the other authors.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Microsurgical breast reconstruction using abdominal tissue is a complex procedure, in part, due to variable vascular/perforator anatomy. Preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) has mitigated this challenge to some degree; yet it continues to pose certain challenges. The ability to map perforators with Mixed Reality has been demonstrated in case studies, but its accuracy has not been studied intraoperatively. Here, we compare the accuracy of “HoloDIEP” in identifying perforator location (vs. Doppler ultrasound) by using holographic 3D models derived from preoperative CTA.

Methods Using a custom application on HoloLens, the deep inferior epigastric artery vascular tree was traced in 15 patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction. Perforator markings were compared against the 3D model in a coordinate system centered on the umbilicus. Holographic- and Doppler-identified markings were compared using a perspective-corrected photo technique against the 3D model along with measurement of duration of perforator mapping for each technique.

Results Vascular points in HoloDIEP skin markings were −0.97 ± 6.2 mm (perforators: −0.62 ± 6.13 mm) away from 3D-model ground-truth in radial length from the umbilicus at a true distance of 10.81 ± 6.14 mm (perforators: 11.40 ± 6.15 mm). Absolute difference in radial distance was twice as high for Doppler markings compared with Holo-markings (9.71 ± 6.16 and 4.02 ± 3.20 mm, respectively). Only in half of all cases (7/14), more than 50% of the Doppler-identified points were reasonably close (<30 mm) to 3D-model ground-truth. HoloDIEP was twice as fast as Doppler ultrasound (76.9s vs. 150.4 s per abdomen).

Conclusion HoloDIEP allows for faster and more accurate intraoperative perforator mapping than Doppler ultrasound.

Keywords

HoloLens - breast reconstruction - DIEA - CTA - 3D-rendering - abdominal flaps

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 26. Februar 2024

Angenommen: 22. Juni 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. Juli 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Breast cancer facts & statistics for 2022. Accessed 3 May 2023 at: https://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/breast-cancer-facts/
    PubMed
  • 2 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report 2020. Accessed 3 May 2023 at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics
    PubMed
  • 3 Char S, Bloom JA, Erlichman Z, Jonczyk MM, Chatterjee A. A comprehensive literature review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) among common breast reconstruction options: what types of breast reconstruction score well?. Breast J 2021; 27 (04) 322-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Eltahir Y, Krabbe-Timmerman IS, Sadok N, Werker PMN, de Bock GH. Outcome of quality of life for women undergoing autologous versus alloplastic breast reconstruction following mastectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (05) 1109-1123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Toyserkani NM, Jørgensen MG, Tabatabaeifar S, Damsgaard T, Sørensen JA. Autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020; 73 (02) 278-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liu C, Zhuang Y, Momeni A. et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after microsurgical abdominal flap versus staged expander/implant breast reconstruction: a critical study of unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using patient-reported outcomes instrument BREAST-Q. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 146 (01) 117-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Masoomi H, Hanson SE, Clemens MW, Mericli AF. Autologous breast reconstruction trends in the united states: using the nationwide inpatient sample database. Ann Plast Surg 2021; 87 (03) 242-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mandelbaum AD, Thompson CK, Attai DJ. et al. National trends in immediate breast reconstruction: an analysis of implant-based versus autologous reconstruction after mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27 (12) 4777-4785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eisenhardt SU, Momeni A, von Fritschen U. et al. Breast reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap – What is the current standard? Consensus Statement of the German Speaking Working Group for Microsurgery of the Peripheral Nerves and Vessels [in German]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2018; 50 (04) 248-255
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cai A, Suckau J, Arkudas A, Beier JP, Momeni A, Horch RE. Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Transverse Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous (TRAM) or Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) flaps: an analysis of the 100 most cited articles. Med Sci Monit 2019; 25: 3520-3536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rozen WM, Ashton MW, Whitaker IS, Wagstaff MJD, Acosta R. The financial implications of computed tomographic angiography in DIEP flap surgery: a cost analysis. Microsurgery 2009; 29 (02) 168-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sheckter CC, Matros E, Momeni A. Assessing value in breast reconstruction: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (03) 353-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Uppal RS, Casaer B, Van Landuyt K, Blondeel P. The efficacy of preoperative mapping of perforators in reducing operative times and complications in perforator flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62 (07) 859-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wade RG, Watford J, Wormald JCR, Bramhall RJ, Figus A. Perforator mapping reduces the operative time of DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preoperative ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiography. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (04) 468-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Haddock NT, Dumestre DO, Teotia SS. Efficiency in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: the real benefit of computed tomographic angiography imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (04) 719-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Colakoglu S, Tebockhorst S, Freedman J. et al. CT angiography prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75 (01) 45-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ohkuma R, Mohan R, Baltodano PA. et al. Abdominally based free flap planning in breast reconstruction with computed tomographic angiography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (03) 483-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Aravind P, Colakoglu S, Bhoopalam M. et al. Perforator characteristics and impact on postoperative outcomes in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39 (02) 138-147
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hembd A, Teotia SS, Zhu H, Haddock NT. Optimizing perforator selection: a multivariable analysis of predictors for fat necrosis and abdominal morbidity in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (03) 583-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ireton JE, Lakhiani C, Saint-Cyr M. Vascular anatomy of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (05) 810e-821e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Saba L, Atzeni M, Ribuffo D, Mallarini G, Suri JS. Analysis of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) arteries by using MDCTA: comparison between 2 post-processing techniques. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81 (08) 1828-1833
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pellegrin A, Stocca T, Belgrano M. et al. Preoperative vascular mapping with multislice CT of deep inferior epigastric artery perforators in planning breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Radiol Med (Torino) 2013; 118 (05) 732-743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Alonso-Burgos A, García-Tutor E, Bastarrika G, Cano D, Martínez-Cuesta A, Pina LJ. Preoperative planning of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstruction with multislice-CT angiography: imaging findings and initial experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59 (06) 585-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rozen WM, Stella DL, Ashton MW, Phillips TJ, Taylor GI. Three-dimensional CT angiography: a new technique for imaging microvascular anatomy. Clin Anat 2007; 20 (08) 1001-1003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gacto-Sánchez P, Sicilia-Castro D, Gómez-Cía T. et al. Computed tomographic angiography with VirSSPA three-dimensional software for perforator navigation improves perioperative outcomes in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (01) 24-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hauck T, Arkudas A, Horch RE. et al. The third dimension in perforator mapping-comparison of cinematic rendering and maximum intensity projection in abdominal-based autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75 (02) 536-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hummelink S, Hoogeveen YL, Schultze Kool LJ, Ulrich DJO. A new and innovative method of preoperatively planning and projecting vascular anatomy in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (06) 1151e-1158e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Martschinke J, Klein V, Kurth P. et al. Projection Mapping for In-Situ Surgery Planning by the Example of DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction. The Eurographics Association; 2021. DOI: 10.2312/vcbm.20211354
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hummelink S, Verhulst AC, Maal TJJ, Hoogeveen YL, Schultze Kool LJ, Ulrich DJO. An innovative method of planning and displaying flap volume in DIEP flap breast reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70 (07) 871-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chae MP, Ganhewa D, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM. Direct augmented reality computed tomographic angiography technique (ARC): an innovation in preoperative imaging. Eur J Plast Surg 2018; 41: 415-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jablonka EM, Wu RT, Mittermiller PA, Gifford K, Momeni A. 3-DIEPrinting: 3D-printed models to assist the intramuscular dissection in abdominally based microsurgical breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (04) e2222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ogunleye AA, Deptula PL, Inchauste SM. et al. The utility of three-dimensional models in complex microsurgical reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2020; 47 (05) 428-434
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 DeFazio MV, Arribas EM, Ahmad FI. et al. Application of three-dimensional printed vascular modeling as a perioperative guide to perforator mapping and pedicle dissection during abdominal flap harvest for breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (05) 325-338
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chae MP, Hunter-Smith DJ, Chung RD, Smith JA, Rozen WM. 3D-printed, patient-specific DIEP flap templates for preoperative planning in breast reconstruction: a prospective case series. Gland Surg 2021; 10 (07) 2192-2199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Augmented reality surgical navigation system FDA approved. Accessed 28 February 2023 at: https://blog.novarad.net/en/newsfeed/first-fully-immersive-3d-augmented-reality-surgical-navigation-system-achieves-fda-approval-for-precision-spine-surgery
    PubMed
  • 36 Medivis Wins FDA Clearance for Breakthrough Augmented Reality Surgical System. Accessed 28 February 2023 at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medivis-wins-fda-clearance-for-breakthrough-augmented-reality-surgical-system-300859064.html?tc=eml_cleartime
    PubMed
  • 37 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
  • 38 Rudy HL, Schreiber JS, Wake N. et al. Intraoperative navigation in plastic surgery with augmented reality: a preclinical validation study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149 (03) 573e-580e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Glas HH, Kraeima J, van Ooijen PMA, Spijkervet FKL, Yu L, Witjes MJH. Augmented reality visualization for image-guided surgery: a validation study using a three-dimensional printed phantom. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 79 (09) 1943.e1-1943.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Nuri T, Mitsuno D, Iwanaga H, Otsuki Y, Ueda K. Application of augmented reality (AR) technology to locate the cutaneous perforator of anterolateral thigh perforator flap: a case report. Microsurgery 2022; 42 (01) 76-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 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
  • 42 Phan R, Chae MP, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM. Advances in perforator imaging through holographic CTA and augmented reality: a systematic review. AJOPS 2022; 5: 32-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wesselius TS, Meulstee JW, Luijten G, Xi T, Maal TJJ, Ulrich DJO. Holographic augmented reality for DIEP flap harvest. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 147 (01) 25e-29e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Masterton G, Miller R, Patel J, Pratt P, Gosling N, Saour S. HoloLens in breast reconstruction: what is the future?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 151 (06) 915e-917e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Fitoussi A, Tacher V, Pigneur F. et al. Augmented reality-assisted deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap harvesting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74 (08) 1931-1971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Nolan IT, Vranis NM, Levine JP. Utilizing augmented reality for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap perforator selection. Microsurgery 2023; 43 (03) 300-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Al Omran Y, Abdall-Razak A, Sohrabi C. et al. Use of augmented reality in reconstructive microsurgery: a systematic review and development of the augmented reality microsurgery score. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (04) 261-270
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Sullivan J, Skladman R, Varagur K. et al. From augmented to virtual reality in plastic surgery: blazing the trail to a new frontier. J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40 (05) 398-406
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Casari FA, Navab N, Hruby LA. et al. Augmented reality in orthopedic surgery is emerging from proof of concept towards clinical studies: a literature review explaining the technology and current state of the art. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2021; 14 (02) 192-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Wolf J, Luchmann D, Lohmeyer Q, Farshad M, Fürnstahl P, Meboldt M. How different augmented reality visualizations for drilling affect trajectory deviation, visual attention, and user experience. Int J CARS 2023; 18 (08) 1363-1371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Molina CA, Phillips FM, Colman MW. et al. A cadaveric precision and accuracy analysis of augmented reality-mediated percutaneous pedicle implant insertion. J Neurosurg Spine 2020; 34 (02) 316-324
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Felix B, Kalatar SB, Moatz B. et al. Augmented reality spine surgery navigation: increasing pedicle screw insertion accuracy for both open and minimally invasive spine surgeries. Spine 2022; 47 (12) 865-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Dennler C, Safa NA, Bauer DE. et al. Augmented reality navigated sacral-alar-iliac screw insertion. Int J Spine Surg 2021; 15 (01) 161-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Liu A, Jin Y, Cottrill E. et al. Clinical accuracy and initial experience with augmented reality-assisted pedicle screw placement: the first 205 screws. J Neurosurg Spine 2021; 36 (03) 351-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Van Gestel F, Frantz T, Vannerom C. et al. The effect of augmented reality on the accuracy and learning curve of external ventricular drain placement. Neurosurg Focus 2021; 51 (02) E8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Schneider M, Kunz C, Pal'a A, Wirtz CR, Mathis-Ullrich F, Hlaváč M. Augmented reality-assisted ventriculostomy. Neurosurg Focus 2021; 50 (01) E16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Kunz C, Hlavac M, Schneider M. et al. Autonomous planning and intraoperative augmented reality navigation for neurosurgery. IEEE Trans Med Robot Bionics 2021; 3: 738-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Cignoni P, Callieri M, Corsini M, Dellepiane M, Ganovelli F, Ranzuglia G. MeshLab: an Open-Source Mesh Processing Tool. The Eurographics Association; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Cholok DJ, Fischer MJ, Leuze CW, Januszyk M, Daniel BL, Momeni A. Spatial fidelity of microvascular perforating vessels as perceived by augmented reality virtual projections. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024; 153 (02) 524-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J. et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30 (09) 1323-1341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 3D Slicer image computing platform | 3D Slicer. Accessed 21 February 2023 at: https://www.slicer.org/
    PubMed
  • 62 Kikinis R, Pieper SD, Vosburgh KG. 3D Slicer: a platform for subject-specific image analysis, visualization, and clinical support. In: Jolesz FA. ed. Intraoperative Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014: 277-289
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Script repository—3D Slicer documentation. Accessed 21 February 2023 at: https://slicer.readthedocs.io/en/latest/developer_guide/script_repository.html#copy-all-measurements-in-the-scene-to-excel
    PubMed
  • 64 RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit; 2020. Accessed 21 February 2023 at: http://www.rstudio.com/
    PubMed
  • 65 Wasserthal J, Breit H-C, Meyer MT. et al. Totalsegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in CT images. Radiol Artif Intell 2023; 5 (05) e230024
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Kim HS, Kim H, Kim S. et al. Precise individual muscle segmentation in whole thigh CT scans for sarcopenia assessment using U-net transformer. Sci Rep 2024; 14 (01) 3301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Edwards K, Chhabra A, Dormer J. et al. Abdominal muscle segmentation from CT using a convolutional neural network. Proc SPIE 2020; 11317: 11317
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Mohan AT, Zhu L, Wang Z, Vijayasekaran A, Saint-Cyr M. Techniques and perforator selection in single, dominant DIEP flap breast reconstruction: algorithmic approach to maximize efficiency and safety. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (05) 790e-803e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar