Table 2.
Answers on questions 1–14
| Questions | Participants | Answers | Median | Range | Mean | SD | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question 1: Do you use tractography at your institution—0 = never, 10 = routinely? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 8 | 3–10 | 7.1 | 2.6 | |||
| % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.3 | 0 | 26.7 | 6.7 | 0 | 13.3 | 6.7 | 33.3 | |||||||||
| Question 2: What is the major application of tractography at your institution? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | None | Only research | Only clinical | Both | ||||||||||||||||
| Number | 0 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 15 | 15 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||
| % | 00 | 33.3 | 20.0 | 46.7 | ||||||||||||||||
| Question 3: Do you trust in tractography—0 = not at all, 10 = completely? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 4–8 | 6.6 | 1.3 | |||
| % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 20.0 | 13.3 | 26.7 | 33.3 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
| Question 4: Which regions of interest do you use for tractography (multiple answers possible)? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | Anatomy-based | Atlas-based | Function-based | |||||||||||||||||
| Number | 10 | 4 | 6 | 15 | 20 | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||
| % | 66.7 | 26.7 | 40.0 | |||||||||||||||||
| Question 5: How do you rate your overall experience of augmented reality for fiber dissection—0 = boring, 10 = exciting? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 8 | 5–10 | 8.5 | 1.4 | |||
| % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 0 | 13.3 | 33.3 | 13.3 | 33.3 | |||||||||
| Question 6: Do you think augmented reality for fiber dissection could be a useful addition to fiber dissection courses—0 = not at all, 10 = absolutely? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 15 | 15 | 8 | 5–10 | 8.3 | 1.4 | |||
| % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 40.0 | 13.3 | 26.7 | |||||||||
| Question 7: How do you rate the usefulness of augmented reality for fiber dissection for education in general—0 = not at all, 10 = very useful? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 15 | 15 | 8 | 5–10 | 8.1 | 1.5 | |||
| % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 13.3 | 0 | 46.7 | 6.7 | 26.7 | |||||||||
| Question 8: For which qualification would you use education by augmented reality for fiber dissection—0 = not useful, 10 = very useful? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Student | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 9 | 5–10 | 8.6 | 1.4 | |||
| % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 0 | 13.3 | 20.0 | 26.7 | 33.3 | |||||||||
| Resident | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 15 | 15 | 9 | 4–10 | 8.5 | 1.8 | |||
| % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 0 | 0 | 26.7 | 20.0 | 40.0 | |||||||||
| Surgeon | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 14 | 14 | 9 | 4–10 | 8.2 | 2.4 | |||
| % | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.071 | 0.000 | 0.071 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.071 | 0.214 | 0.143 | 0.429 | |||||||||
| Scientist | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 14 | 8.5 | 2–10 | 8.0 | 2.4 | |||
| % | 0 | 0 | 7.1 | 0 | 7.1 | 0 | 7.1 | 0 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 35.7 | |||||||||
| Question 9: Do you think there is a value for clinical application of augmented reality for fiber dissection—0 = not at all, 10 = absolutely? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
| Number | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 0–10 | 7.0 | 2.5 | |||
| % | 6.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20.0 | 0 | 33.3 | 13.3 | 6.7 | 20.0 | |||||||||
| Question 10: For which clinical application could augmented reality for fiber dissection be used in future (multiple answers possible)? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | Resident | PreOP | IntraOP | Patient consultation | ||||||||||||||||
| Number | 8 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 29 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||
| % | 53.3 | 93.3 | 20.0 | 26.7 | ||||||||||||||||
| Question 11: Do the presented cases reflect your clinical reality? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||
| Number | 12 | 1 | 13 | 13 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
| % | 92.3 | 7.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Question 12: Are the visualized fiber tracts anatomically correct? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||
| Number | 6 | 4 | 10 | 10 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
| % | 60.0 | 40.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Question 13: Did you see a difference between anatomy-based and function-based tractography? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | No | Yes favoring anatomy | Yes favoring function | |||||||||||||||||
| Number | 2 | 2 | 8 | 12 | 12 | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||
| % | 16.7 | 16.7 | 66.7 | |||||||||||||||||
| Question 14: Is DTI enough augmented reality for fiber dissection or would you recommend using a more sophisticated approach for such fiber dissection? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Answers | Enough | More sophisticated | ||||||||||||||||||
| Number | 9 | 5 | 14 | 14 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
| % | 64.3 | 35.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
The table shows the results of questions on the participants’ use of tractography at their institutions and on the participants’ impression of the AR fiber dissection session