Key result
Mixed reality viewer provides equal or better interobserver agreement than conventional viewers for assessing aortoiliac anatomy.
Why the study?
The feasibility and interobserver agreement of a Mixed Reality Viewer in assessing aortoiliac anatomy in AAA patients was not established.
Does a Mixed Reality Viewer improve interobserver agreement in the assessment of aortoiliac anatomy in AAA patients compared to a conventional DICOM viewer?
Cross-Sectional (n=50)
Does a Mixed Reality Viewer improve interobserver agreement in the assessment of aortoiliac anatomy in AAA patients compared to a conventional DICOM viewer?
Mixed reality viewing is feasible for assessing aortoiliac anatomy in AAA patients and offers comparable or better interobserver agreement for certain anatomical features, though conventional viewing remains superior for identifying small vessels like lumbar arteries.
May support mixed reality for vascular imaging assessment; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Objectives The objective is to evaluate the feasibility and interobserver agreement of a Mixed Reality Viewer (MRV) in the assessment of aortoiliac vascular anatomy of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients. Methods Fifty preoperative computed tomography angiographies (CTAs) of AAA patients were included. CTAs were assessed in a mixed reality (MR) environment with respect to aortoiliac anatomy according to a standardized protocol by two experienced observers (Mixed Reality Viewer, MRV, Brainlab AG, Germany). Additionally, all CTAs were independently assessed applying the same protocol by the same observers using a conventional DICOM viewer on a two-dimensional screen with multi-planar reconstructions (Conventional viewer, CV, GE Centricity PACS RA1000 Workstation, GE, United States). The protocol included four sets of items: calcification, dilatation, patency, and tortuosity as well as the number of lumbar and renal arteries. Interobserver agreement (IA, Cohen’s Kappa, κ ) was calculated for every item set. Results All CTAs could successfully be displayed in the MRV (100%). The MRV demonstrated equal or better IA in the assessment of anterior and posterior calcification ( κ MRV : 0.68 and 0.61, κ CV : 0.33 and 0.45, respectively) as well as tortuosity ( κ MRV : 0.60, κ CV : 0.48) and dilatation ( κ MRV : 0.68, κ CV : 0.67). The CV demonstrated better IA in the assessment of patency ( κ MRV : 0.74, κ CV : 0.93). The CV also identified significantly more lumbar arteries (CV: 379, MRV: 239, p < 0.01). Conclusions The MRV is a feasible imaging viewing technology in clinical routine. Future efforts should aim at improving hologram quality and enabling accurate registration of the hologram with the physical patient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hatzl et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Abdominal aortic aneurysm (n=50). Mixed Reality Viewer (MRV) vs. Conventional DICOM viewer (CV) was evaluated on Interobserver agreement (Cohen's Kappa) for aortoiliac anatomy assessment. The Mixed Reality Viewer demonstrated equal or better interobserver agreement than a conventional viewer for assessing anterior calcification (κ 0.68 vs 0.33) and tortuosity (κ 0.60 vs 0.48).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: