Skip to content

HoloLens: an Objective Alternative to the Operator's Memory

Using Augmented Reality to 3D Map Needle Pathways in Real Time to Enhance Neuraxial Anesthesia

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04028284
Acronym
Hololens
Enrollment
84
Registered
2019-07-22
Start date
2019-01-18
Completion date
2021-02-19
Last updated
2025-01-03

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Anesthesia, Epidural, Virtual Reality

Keywords

epidural, analgesia, Virtual reality

Brief summary

Neuraxial anesthesia has traditionally been a 'blind' technique relying on users' feel and skill, both are subjective, lack complete accuracy and influenced by patient's physique variations that are quite challenging, and lead to patient morbidity, infection, and nerve injury. The ultrasound(US) use allows real-time views of needle position thereby achieving higher success rates, fewer complications, and reduced patient discomfort. While US guidance for neuraxial procedures is popular, it is still relatively uncommon due to technical and anatomical challenges. The study investigators have created an innovative methodology to use with HoloLens, an augmented reality tool, to provide an accurate live road map for the needle path hidden under the patient's skin. This see-through model is an objective alternative to the user's memory for direct visualization of the needle virtual trajectory as it passed through the tissue and towards the 3D printed bone. Also, this model may have a variety uses in anesthesia.

Detailed description

US guidance for epidural anesthesia is yet challenging due to anatomical and technical restrictions which are rely on the operator's memory to imitate accurate needle trajectory. To address the problem, the study investigators designed and developed the first model of a live anatomical holographic marking system using Microsoft HoloLens, an augmented reality technology tool, to provide a superimposed US image as an objective alternative to the operator's memory. In this study, the proposed methodology will be used to accurate and ease directing the needle insertion thereby leading to the success of the epidural placement and decrease in procedure time. Based on previously published and data from the SHSC institution, mean thoracic epidural analgesia placement required 10 minutes with a standard deviation of 3 minutes. A reduction in procedure time will reduce patient discomfort, increase block and operating rooms efficiency thereby reducing hospital costs as well as used for anatomically challenging patients. The investigators hypothesize that using augmented reality through HoloLens will lead to implementation of a newly developed virtual holographic 'see-through' tool for neuraxial anesthetic techniques that will increase needle accuracy and decrease procedure time. The main question of the study is to assess the accuracy of the developed application. In particular, the study will determine if a holographic marking of the site of needle insertion and optimal angulation will increase needle accuracy and reduce procedure time by increasing first past success when compared to traditional ultrasound land-mark based techniques. The methodology proposed in this study is truly innovative in medical content, involves a partnership with software and engineering experts. The study will lead to implementation of a new objective tool, validation of which will create an accessible, cost-effective piece of technology that will reduce patient morbidity and increase procedure success rate. This 'state-of-the-art' technology can be used for alternate procedures such as peripheral nerve block in patients that cannot be easily positioned for live US techniques. Also, this study will generate a knowledge-based approach that can be used as a teaching and clinical tool locally at institutions presented with anatomically difficult population (e.g. trauma, obstetric patients) at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and around the world, where resources are at a minimum. This is a prospective cohort randomized trial. With institutional ethical approval and having obtained both, written informed consent and verbal assent from participants, 84 thoracic epidural events will be assessed. A thoracic spine US 3D Phantom model utilizing open source BodyParts3D library anatomy files constructed by group of software and engineering experts, and accessible for practice to anesthetists. Our 3D Phantom model has similar palpation characteristics to a patient mimicking a standard loss of resistance to saline that occurs on entrance of a needle to the spinal canal cavity. The holographic mapping methodology will be practiced by anesthetists on the Phantom model until they feel comfortable with the system prior the study start. Participants will be recruited from the pre-anesthesia clinic. Only participants who meet inclusion criteria will be approached for participation in this study (Table 1,inclusion/exclusion criteria, study protocol). The anesthetists will be randomized to: Group1, landmark based thoracic epidural technique(control) or, Group 2, HoloLens-assisted thoracic epidural technique(intervention), where the needle will be inserted using instantly created holographic trajectory. SHS centre has a dedicated regional block room and four regional expert anesthetists in the US-guided thoracic epidural technique and are comfortable with the HoloLens. Prior to the study start, anesthetists will practice needle insertion on the phantom model by attempting needle insertion 20Xeach, or until they felt comfortable with the tool, while wearing HoloLens. Other aspects of patient care will follow the standard of care at the centre. Data will be collected by anesthetists and include patients surgical/abdominal pain assessment during epidural procedure and post-operatively, and questionnaire about their experience using the HoloLens. Data will be validated to enable optimization and further implementation of novel technology. 1. Inclusion Criteria/Anesthetists: * Trained in US-guided epidural technique with fellowship * Performed \>100 thoracic US-guided epidural procedures 2. Exclusion Criteria/Patients: * age \>18 * Lack of verbal patient assent after study introduction The control group will be required to determine if hologram mapping and methodology indeed provide an accuracy of the holographic trajectory and create a live road map for the needle path hidden under the patient's skin. Study participants will be withdrawn from the study at their request at any time. To address this study specific objectives of whether the HoloLens application, that is designed to allow a holographic marking of the needle insertion site and optimal angulation would 1) decrease procedure time by increasing first past success when used as a guide to the thoracic epidural space; and 2) increase needle accuracy when compared to traditional ultrasound landmark based techniques, an observer (i.e. anesthesiologist) will document following: 1. the time to procedure completion starting from skin puncture to time at which the Tuohy needle is withdrawn; 2. the number of a needle movements (in any direction/re-direction) 3. number of skin punctures made; 4. patients' pain score during the procedure and post-operatively using the numeric rating scale (NRS); 5. any complications during the procedure such as paresthesias, dural punctures; 6. the need for patient controlled analgesia (PCA) in PACU (constituting failure of epidural).

Interventions

DEVICEHoloLens-guided epidural

To determine whether using the HoloLens tool increases the success of epidural insertion.

OTHERUS-guided epidural

traditional thoracic epidural procedure

Sponsors

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DEVICE_FEASIBILITY
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Trained in US-guided epidural technique with fellowship * Performed \>100 thoracic US-guided epidural procedures

Exclusion criteria

* Age \<18 * Lack of verbal patient assent after study introduction

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Procedure TimeDuring procedureThe time starting from skin puncture until withdrawal of the Tuohy needle after successful catheter placement.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Needle PassesDuring procedureAny advancement of of the needle along an unchanged trajectory.
Number of Bone ContactsDuring procedureThe number of times the needle contacted a bone, as reported by the anesthesiologist performing the procedure.
Procedural PainDuring procedureProcedural pain assessed using the numerical rating scale (0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) after the completion of the epidural procedure.
Number of Needle InsertionsDuring procedureThe number of times the needle was completely withdrawn from the skin and reinserted at a new location.
Number of Participants With Epidural FailureIn the PACUDefined as unexpected addition of intravenous patient controlled analgesia to the patient's pain control regimen prior to discharge from the recovery room.
ComplicationsDuring procedureComplications such as paresthesia and dural puncture as noted by the observer.
Pain in PACUIn the PACUPain assessed using the numerical rating scale (0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) in the post-anesthesia care unit.

Countries

Canada

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

1 participant was not randomized due to their surgery being cancelled.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Group C
In Group C (control), the staff anesthesiologist will follow the traditional technique for US-guided thoracic epidural insertion. Briefly, the anesthesiologist will use the US to identify and mark the appropriate spot for placement of the thoracic epidural catheter. The US probe is then placed at rest and the anesthesiologist will proceed with thoracic epidural needle insertion following standard techniques. US-guided epidural: traditional thoracic epidural procedure
42
Group H
In Group H (intervention), the staff anesthesiologist will use the HoloLens tool to assist with the traditional technique as described for Group C. In combination with the US, a hologram image of the trajectory towards the epidural space will be generated, thereby mitigating the need to walk off the lamina. The holographic system will mark the appropriate spot for placement of the thoracic epidural catheter. Then, the needle will be inserted following the holographic trajectory overlaid on the patient's back. HoloLens-guided epidural: To determine whether using the HoloLens tool increases the success of epidural insertion.
41
Total83

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicGroup HGroup CTotal
Age, Continuous62.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.3
65.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.2
64.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.7
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
19 Participants20 Participants39 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
22 Participants22 Participants44 Participants
Surgical Type
General
3 Participants3 Participants6 Participants
Surgical Type
Gynecologic
13 Participants10 Participants23 Participants
Surgical Type
Oncology
24 Participants25 Participants49 Participants
Surgical Type
Urologic
1 Participants4 Participants5 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 420 / 41
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 420 / 41
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 420 / 41

Outcome results

Primary

Procedure Time

The time starting from skin puncture until withdrawal of the Tuohy needle after successful catheter placement.

Time frame: During procedure

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Group CProcedure Time7.3 MinutesStandard Deviation 6
Group HProcedure Time4.5 MinutesStandard Deviation 4.6
p-value: 0.02t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Complications

Complications such as paresthesia and dural puncture as noted by the observer.

Time frame: During procedure

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Group CComplications0 Number of complications
Group HComplications0 Number of complications
Secondary

Number of Bone Contacts

The number of times the needle contacted a bone, as reported by the anesthesiologist performing the procedure.

Time frame: During procedure

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Group CNumber of Bone Contacts12.2 Number of contactsStandard Deviation 16
Group HNumber of Bone Contacts6 Number of contactsStandard Deviation 8
p-value: 0.03t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Number of Needle Insertions

The number of times the needle was completely withdrawn from the skin and reinserted at a new location.

Time frame: During procedure

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Group CNumber of Needle Insertions1.5 InsertionsStandard Deviation 1
Group HNumber of Needle Insertions1.3 InsertionsStandard Deviation 0.5
p-value: 0.31t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Number of Needle Passes

Any advancement of of the needle along an unchanged trajectory.

Time frame: During procedure

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Group CNumber of Needle Passes14.4 Number of passesStandard Deviation 16.3
Group HNumber of Needle Passes7.2 Number of passesStandard Deviation 7.9
p-value: 0.01t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Number of Participants With Epidural Failure

Defined as unexpected addition of intravenous patient controlled analgesia to the patient's pain control regimen prior to discharge from the recovery room.

Time frame: In the PACU

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Group CNumber of Participants With Epidural Failure3 Participants
Group HNumber of Participants With Epidural Failure0 Participants
p-value: 0.24Fisher Exact
Secondary

Pain in PACU

Pain assessed using the numerical rating scale (0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) in the post-anesthesia care unit.

Time frame: In the PACU

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Group CPain in PACU2.6 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3
Group HPain in PACU2.4 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.8
p-value: 0.78t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Procedural Pain

Procedural pain assessed using the numerical rating scale (0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) after the completion of the epidural procedure.

Time frame: During procedure

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Group CProcedural Pain2.6 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Group HProcedural Pain2.8 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.3
p-value: 0.56t-test, 2 sided

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 12, 2026