3 ms·

It's unclear in what way the surgery was actually performed with Google Cardboard. > "He uploaded the images of the baby's heart that he got on the CT scan [to

by eridius 11y ago

It's unclear in what way the surgery was actually performed with Google Cardboard. > "He uploaded the images of the baby's heart that he got on the CT scan [to a smartphone], and you put it into this cardboard box, and then in his office, I was looking at the baby's heart in a way that I had never been able to do before," said Nicklaus Children's Hospital Dr. Redmond Burke. "With the box, you get a stereoscopic image, and you can move around in the environment to see every part of the heart." So basically, the surgery itself actually didn't use it at all, the doctor just used it as a stereoscopic viewer for a collection of CT images. But I'm not sure how this is really any different at all from just loading it into a 3D modeler and spinning the camera around. Sure, actual stereoscopic 3D probably makes it easier to get a feel for the dimensions, but there's nothing particularly revolutionary about it that should make an impossible surgery possible.

Splendor 11y ago
That's how I read it too. It sounds like Cardboard was used to prepare for the surgery or maybe just to confirm whether or not surgery was a viable option.
Zikes 11y ago
If we're going to accept that stereoscopy makes an objectively positive difference over a "flat 3D" presentation, does it not follow that the threshold for success in this case potentially fell within that difference?
- eridius 11y ago
  I don't think it does. Remember, we're not talking about some kind of remote-operated robotic surgery rig, where the difference might actually affect the movements the surgeon uses during the surgery. This was just for looking at images in preparation for the surgery. Stereoscopic 3D can help get a feel for the depth quickly, but I don't think there's any fundamental difference between using that versus just spending a little more time working with a 3D model (moving a 3D model around gets you a feel for the depth too, just not as fast as stereoscopic imagery does). Besides, we've had 3D monitors for years now. If there was a significant difference here, doctors would all have switched to using 3D monitors years ago to do this kind of preparation. Or at least, we'd have heard stories come out before now about individual doctors that did make the switch because it allows them to confidently perform surgeries they couldn't before.

by eridius 11y ago

Splendor 11y ago

That's how I read it too. It sounds like Cardboard was used to prepare for the surgery or maybe just to confirm whether or not surgery was a viable option.

Zikes 11y ago

If we're going to accept that stereoscopy makes an objectively positive difference over a "flat 3D" presentation, does it not follow that the threshold for success in this case potentially fell within that difference?

eridius 11y ago
I don't think it does. Remember, we're not talking about some kind of remote-operated robotic surgery rig, where the difference might actually affect the movements the surgeon uses during the surgery. This was just for looking at images in preparation for the surgery. Stereoscopic 3D can help get a feel for the depth quickly, but I don't think there's any fundamental difference between using that versus just spending a little more time working with a 3D model (moving a 3D model around gets you a feel for the depth too, just not as fast as stereoscopic imagery does). Besides, we've had 3D monitors for years now. If there was a significant difference here, doctors would all have switched to using 3D monitors years ago to do this kind of preparation. Or at least, we'd have heard stories come out before now about individual doctors that did make the switch because it allows them to confidently perform surgeries they couldn't before.