Towards the target and not beyond: 2D vs 3D visual aids in MR-based neurosurgical simulation

TL;DR

This study evaluates the effectiveness of 2D and 3D visual aids in MR-based neurosurgical training, demonstrating that combined aids significantly improve unaided procedure precision without increasing cognitive load.

Contribution

Introduces NeuroMix, an MR simulator for EVD placement, and provides evidence that combined 2D and 3D visual aids enhance skill transfer in neurosurgical training.

Findings

44% improvement in unaided procedure precision with combined aids

High usability and acceptance ratings across all training modalities

No significant increase in cognitive workload with combined visual aids

Abstract

Neurosurgery increasingly uses Mixed Reality (MR) technologies for intraoperative assistance. The greatest challenge in this area is mentally reconstructing complex 3D anatomical structures from 2D slices with millimetric precision, which is required in procedures like External Ventricular Drain (EVD) placement. MR technologies have shown great potential in improving surgical performance, however, their limited availability in clinical settings underscores the need for training systems that foster skill retention in unaided conditions. In this paper, we introduce NeuroMix, an MR-based simulator for EVD placement. We conduct a study with 48 participants to assess the impact of 2D and 3D visual aids on usability, cognitive load, technology acceptance, and procedure precision and execution time. Three training modalities are compared: one without visual aids, one with 2D aids only, and one combining both 2D and 3D aids. The training phase takes place entirely on digital objects, followed by a freehand EVD placement testing phase performed with a physical catherer and a physical phantom without MR aids. We then compare the participants performance with that of a control group that does not undergo training. Our findings show that participants trained with both 2D and 3D aids achieve a 44\% improvement in precision during unaided testing compared to the control group, substantially higher than the improvement observed in the other groups. All three training modalities receive high usability and technology acceptance ratings, with significant equivalence across groups. The combination of 2D and 3D visual aids does not significantly increase cognitive workload, though it leads to longer operation times during freehand testing compared to the control group.