No abstract

In endoscopy, depth estimation is a task that potentially helps in quantifying visual information for better scene understanding. A plethora of depth estimation algorithms have been proposed in the computer vision community. The endoscopic domain however, differs from the typical depth estimation scenario due to differences in the setup and nature of the scene. Furthermore, it is unfeasible to obtain ground truth depth information owing to an unsuitable detection range of off-the-shelf depth sensors and difficulties in setting up a depth-sensor in a surgical environment. In this paper, an existing self-supervised approach, called Monodepth [1], from the field of autonomous driving is applied to a novel dataset of stereo-endoscopic images from reconstructive mitral valve surgery. While it is already known that endoscopic scenes are more challenging than outdoor driving scenes, the paper performs experiments to quantify the comparison, and describe the domain gap and challenges involved in the transfer of these methods.

Purpose Minimally invasive surgeries have restricted surgical ports, demanding a high skill level from the surgeon. Surgical simulation potentially reduces this steep learning curve and additionally provides quantitative feedback. Markerless depth sensors show great promise for quantification, but most such sensors are not designed for accurate reconstruction of complex anatomical forms in close-range. Methods This work compares three commercially available depth sensors, namely the Intel D405, D415, and the Stereolabs Zed-Mini in the range of 12–20 cm, for use in surgical simulation. Three environments are designed that closely mimic surgical simulation, comprising planar surfaces, rigid objects, and mitral valve models of silicone and realistic porcine tissue. The cameras are evaluated on Z-accuracy, temporal noise, fill rate, checker distance, point cloud comparisons, and visual inspection of surgical scenes, across several camera settings. Results The Intel cameras show sub-mm accuracy in most static environments. The D415 fails in reconstructing valve models, while the Zed-Mini provides lesser temporal noise and higher fill rate. The D405 could reconstruct anatomical structures like the mitral valve leaflet and a ring prosthesis, but performs poorly for reflective surfaces like surgical tools and thin structures like sutures. Conclusion If a high temporal resolution is needed and lower spatial resolution is acceptable, the Zed-Mini is the best choice, whereas the Intel D405 is the most suited for close-range applications. The D405 shows potential for applications like deformable registration of surfaces, but is not yet suitable for applications like real-time tool tracking or surgical skill assessment.