Enhancing Surgical Vision: Augmented Reality in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Augmented reality (AR) technology has become widely established in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Over the past 20 years, numerous AR systems have been investigated and validated across the subspecialties, both in cadaveric and in live surgical studies. AR displays projected through head-mounted devices, microscopes, and endoscopes, most commonly, have demonstrated utility in preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, and improvement of surgical decision-making. Specifically, they have demonstrated feasibility in guiding tumor margin resections, identifying critical structures intraoperatively, and displaying patient-specific virtual models derived from preoperative imaging, with millimetric accuracy. This review summarizes both established and emerging AR technologies, detailing how their systems work, what features they offer, and their clinical impact across otolaryngology subspecialties. As AR technology continues to advance, its integration holds promise for enhancing surgical precision, simulation training, and ultimately, improving patient outcomes.

More than meets the eye: Augmented reality in surgical oncology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the field of surgical oncology, there has been a desire for innovative techniques to improve tumor visualization, resection, and patient outcomes. Augmented reality (AR) technology superimposes digital content onto the real-world environment, enhancing the user's experience by blending digital and physical elements. A thorough examination of AR technology in surgical oncology has yet to be performed. METHODS: A scoping review of intraoperative AR in surgical oncology was conducted according to the guidelines and recommendations of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyzes Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework. All original articles examining the use of intraoperative AR during surgical management of cancer were included. Exclusion criteria included virtual reality applications only, preoperative use only, fluorescence, AR not specific to surgical oncology, and study design (reviews, commentaries, abstracts). RESULTS: A total of 2735 articles were identified of which 83 were included. Most studies (52) were performed on animals or phantom models, while the remaining included patients. A total of 1112 intraoperative AR surgical cases were performed across the studies. The most common anatomic site was brain (20 articles), followed by liver (16), renal (9), and head and neck (8). AR was most often used for intraoperative navigation or anatomic visualization of tumors or critical structures but was also used to identify osteotomy or craniotomy planes. CONCLUSIONS: AR technology has been applied across the field of surgical oncology to aid in localization and resection of tumors.

Augmented Reality-Guided Frozen Section Analysis: Bringing the Pathologist From the Laboratory to the Operating Room.

Due to the anatomic complexity of the head and neck and variable proximity between laboratory and operating room (OR), effective communication during frozen section analysis (FSA) between surgeons and pathologists is challenging. This proof-of-concept study investigates an augmented reality (AR) protocol that allows pathologists to virtually join the OR from the laboratory. Head and neck cancer specimens were scanned ex vivo using a 3-dimensional scanner and uploaded into an AR platform. Eight head and neck specimens were discussed by surgeons and pathologists in an AR environment. AR-guided intraoperative consultation was used for specimen orientation and discussion of FSA margin sampling sites. One patient had positive initial margins on FSA and was re-resected to negative final margins. AR-guided FSA is possible and allows pathologists to join the operating from any location for intraoperative discussion.

Visual pathology reports for improved collaboration at multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board.

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TB) are the standard for discussing complex head and neck cancer cases. During TB, imaging and microscopic pathology is reviewed, but there is typically no visualization of the resected cancer. METHODS: A pilot study was conducted to investigate the utility of visual pathology reports at weekly TB for 10 consecutive weeks. Faculty-level participants completed a pre-survey and post-survey to assess understanding of resected cancer specimens. RESULTS: Providers (n = 25) across seven medical specialties completed pre-survey and post-survey. Following intervention, providers reported significant improvement in understanding of anatomic orientation of the specimen and sites of margin sampling (mean 47.4-96.1, p < 0.001), ability to locate the site of a positive margin (mean 69.5-91.1, p < 0.001), and confidence in treatment plans created (mean 69.5-89.2, p < 0.001) with the addition of visual pathology reports. CONCLUSIONS: Visual pathology reports improve provider understanding of resected cancer specimens at multidisciplinary TB.

3D Specimen Scanning and Mapping in Musculoskeletal Oncology: A Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the primary treatment for bone and soft tissue tumors. Negative margin status is a key factor in prognosis. Given the three-dimensional (3D) anatomic complexity of musculoskeletal tumor specimens, communication of margin results between surgeons and pathologists is challenging. We sought to perform ex vivo 3D scanning of musculoskeletal oncology specimens to enhance communication between surgeons and pathologists. METHODS: Immediately after surgical resection, 3D scanning of the fresh specimen is performed prior to frozen section analysis. During pathologic grossing, whether frozen or permanent, margin sampling sites are annotated on the virtual 3D model using computer-aided design (CAD) software. RESULTS: 3D scanning was performed in seven cases (six soft tissue, one bone), with specimen mapping on six cases. Intraoperative 3D scanning and mapping was performed in one case in which the location of margin sampling was shown virtually in real-time to the operating surgeon to help achieve a negative margin. In six cases, the 3D model was used to communicate final permanent section analysis. Soft tissue, cartilage, and bone (including lytic lesions within bone) showed acceptable resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual 3D scanning and specimen mapping is feasible and may allow for enhanced documentation and communication. This protocol provides useful information for anatomically complex musculoskeletal tumor specimens. Future studies will evaluate the effect of the protocol on positive margin rates, likelihood that a re-resection contains additional malignancy, and exploration of targeted adjuvant radiation protocols using a patient-specific 3D specimen map.

Enhanced Communication of Tumor Margins Using 3D Scanning and Mapping.

After oncologic resection of malignant tumors, specimens are sent to pathology for processing to determine the surgical margin status. These results are communicated in the form of a written pathology report. The current standard-of-care pathology report provides a written description of the specimen and the sites of margin sampling without any visual representation of the resected tissue. The specimen itself is typically destroyed during sectioning and analysis. This often leads to challenging communication between pathologists and surgeons when the final pathology report is confirmed. Furthermore, surgeons and pathologists are the only members of the multidisciplinary cancer care team to visualize the resected cancer specimen. We have developed a 3D scanning and specimen mapping protocol to address this unmet need. Computer-aided design (CAD) software is used to annotate the virtual specimen clearly showing sites of inking and margin sampling. This map can be utilized by various members of the multidisciplinary cancer care team.