For Medical Endoscopy
We demonstrated RDFixer to surgeons of different specialities, here you can find some interviews and testimonials of their medical opinions about the technology.
Chief of Orthopaedic Services at HUC/CHUC
Professor at Faculty of Medicine
University of Coimbra
"One of the greatest problems in arthroscopic surgery is the scene's depth perception [...]. The new system overcomes this by enabling the perception of the correct depth using only one of the five senses, a feature that not even the new HD systems can provide"
I have been doing arthroscopic surgery for nearly 20 years, focusing primarily on the knee, I and can say that i am comfortable with all fields of video-surgery. This is a matured area with well defined and standardized products, which limitations are already known and most often overcame by extensive training.
I was asked an opinion on the new system to eliminate radial distortion for arthroscopic surgery. I was able to perform an arthroscopy on a simulated knee model contained inside a small box that the researchers built. During the simulation (triangulation and palpation) and in real-time, the researchers alternated the video between the one obtained by classical processes and the one presented by the new system, without informing me (they only asked me to retain the differences between visualization A and B).
At the end of the various testing phases, my preference went for the system B, which actually corresponded to the new system they was developing.
So, Why choose this system? A major problem of arthroscopic surgery today is the problem of the notion of depth. In practice, this situation is overcame by adding to the visual perception that we received from the screen the perception given the tracer or another surgical instrument in use, and also the knowledge of the anatomy studied previously and whose images are engraved in our memory. The new system overcomes this by enabling the perception of depth only by one of the five senses of the human being, a fact that even the new HD systems can accomplish. The HD systems provide the known effects (greater resolution and sharpness), but does not increase the depth perception.
But will it be an advantage after 20 years of arthroscopy? I think so. In retrospect, it would have prevented positional errors in the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. But i think it will become even more useful when more advances in the treatment by arthroscopy of cartilage lesions arrise. In this case there will be no prior to remedy the lack of depth in the images obtained. The depth notion is essential to compute the intervention area and calculate the necessary area of modification/loss of cartilage.
For all that I believe that it is important to further development this product and, as an area (Medicine) in which the country is used to import technology, it is important to support these and other good ideas that may arise. Paraphrasing the words of a well-known journalist. "Portugal does good!"
Orthopaedics and Trauma surgeon
Member of the Portuguese Society of Arthroscopy and Traumatology (SPAT)
Medical Major at the Regional Military Hospital nº 2
"[..] the new system gave me a perception of the articulation that i had never experienced before. In the overall i felt that the "hole" used to look inside the knee was wider than usually."
I am an orthopedic surgeon and I regularly perform Knee Arthroscopy. Throughout my career I worked with several equipments, but the new system gave me a sense of connection that had never experienced before. Basically I got the impression that the "hole" used to peek inside the knee was broader than usual.
I took the test on a training model, and I was requested to inspect the joint while alternating two visualization modes (A and B). The visualization mode A seemed familiar, corresponding to the visualization I'm used to, but my preference was undoubtedly to visualization B, which they told me after that corresponded to the new system. The most relevant that I found between the two visualization systems were the following:
(i) It seemed that with visualization B I felt a lesser need to move the camera to observe all the structures of the knee model, getting an image closer to the reality during the triangulation.
(ii) The visual response I had while making small movements with the camera also seemed faster and more realistic in visualization B.
(iii) The feeling of "closeness", so to speak, seemed also better with the B mode, particularly when I was observing the region of the intercondylar notch while flexing the knee, which is very important in Arthroscopy.
Attending Surgeon at IPOFG
"I verified a better image quality in the periphery, as well as a greater depth field."
Relatively to the required opinion about the image test I realized today I have to say:
I verified a better image quality in the periphery, as well as a greater depth field. The image seams less distorted and closer to the reality. I did not noticed differences in the sharpness on the image in the central region.
Maximino José Correia Leitão
Retired Teacher at FMUC
Ex Director of the Gastroenterology service at HUC, Ex Presidente of the Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology and Ex Presidente Portuguese Society of Digestive Endoscopy
"The correction system is very efficient in the normalization (undistortion) of the endoscopic images when the lens is very close to the object."
I was asked an opinion about the visualization of anatomic structures through endoscopic video and images, with and without the "Radial Distortion Correction System by Software in Real-Time". I evaluated the images without prior knowledge of which visualization I was using (the native or the corrected one). As a result of this evaluation I can state:
(i) The correction system is very efficient in the normalization (undistortion) of the endoscopic images when the lens is very close to the object.
(ii) There is, apparently, a detail definition gain when using the new visualization system.
(iii) The gain in depth notion, when the new visualization system is running, is also noticeable but, in my opinion, it is marginal.
(iv) For a more thorough opinion about the pros of the innovation it would be essential, in my point of view, to test the system “in vivo” in the multiple digestive endoscopy procedures.