In-vitro evaluation of a soft-tissue navigation system for laparoscopic prostatectomy

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1487-1491

  Teber, Dogu ^a   Simpfendörfer, Tobias ^b   Guven, Selcuk ^c   Baumhauer, Matthias ^b   Gözen, Ali Serdar ^a   Rassweiler, Jens ^a  

^a SLK Kliniken Heilbronn   (Germany)

^b GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

^c SELCUK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING SYSTEM; IN VITRO STUDY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATECTOMY; SOFT TISSUE RADIOGRAPHY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; VIDEOENDOSCOPY;

ENDOSCOPY; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ULTRASOUND, HIGH-INTENSITY FOCUSED, TRANSRECTAL;

EID: 77956928357     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.0289     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Rassweiler J, Marrero R, Hammady A, et al. Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Ascending technique. J Endourol 2004;18:593-600.
2. Ukimura O, Magi-Galluzzi C, Gill IS. Real-time transrectal ultrasound guidance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Impact on surgical margins. J Urol 2006;175:1304-1310.
3. Ukimura O, Gill IS. Imaging-assisted endoscopic surgery: Cleveland Clinic experience. J Endourol 2008;22:803-810.
4. Baumhauer M, Simpfendoerfer T, Wolf I, et al. Soft tissue navigation for laparoscopic prostatectomy: Evaluation of camera pose estimation for enhanced visualization. SPIE Medical Imaging 2007;6509:650911.
5. Heimann T, et al. Prostate segmentation from 3D transrectal ultrasound using statistical shape models and local histogram matching. SPIE Medical Imaging 2008. In press.
6. Welch G, Foxlin E. Motion tracking: No silver bullet, but a respectable arsenal. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 2002;22:24-38.
7. Illingworth J, Yuen HK, Princen J. Comparative study of hough transform methods for circle finding. Image and Vision Computing 1990;8:71-77.
8. Teber D, Baumhauer M, Guven EO, Rassweiler J. Robotic and imaging in urological surgery. Curr Opin Urol 2009;19: 108-113.
9. Marescaux J, Rubino F, Arenas M, et al. Augmentedreality- assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy. JAMA 2004;292: 2214-2215.
10. Mozer P, Conort P, Leroy A, et al. Aid to percutaneous renal access by virtual projection of the ultrasound puncture tract onto fluoroscopic images. J Endourol 2007;21:460-465.
11. Ukimura O, Gill IS, Nakamoto M, et al. Augmented reality visualization during laparoscopic urologic surgery: The initial clinical experience. In: Proceedings of the 102nd American Urological Association meeting; May 19-24, 2007, Anaheim, CA. J Urol 2007;177(suppl):348. Abstract V1052.
12. Rassweiler J, Klein J, Teber D, et al. Mechanical simulators for training for laparoscopic surgery in urology. J Endourol 2007;21:252-262.
13. Botden S, Buzink S, Schijven M, Jakimowicz J. Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: What is the difference? A comparison of the ProMIS augmented reality laparoscopic simulator versus LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator. World J Surg 2007;31:764-772.