“…Accordingly there are various other specific approaches which we have assigned to the group of information support IGS, including systems providing intraoperative visualization of cumulative instrument positions corresponding to removed tissue providing the surgeon with information about the surgical process over time (process visualization, PV-IGS) (Hong et al, 2009;Voormolen et al, 2012;Woerdeman et al, 2009a), visualization of uncertainty arising from registration, instrument calibration and tracking (uncertainty visualization, UV-IGS) (Simpson et al, 2014), visualization of distances between the surgical instrument and sensitive anatomical structures that need to be protected during the surgery (distance visualization, DV-IGS) (Cho et al, 2013;Voormolen et al, 2012), auditory or visual alerts if the instrument approaches such a structure (proximity warnings, PW-IGS) (Cho et al, 2013;Dixon et al, 2014a;Voormolen et al, 2012;Willems et al, 2005;Woerdeman et al, 2009b), augmentation of risk structures included directly into the whole endoscopic video image or just on its background (augmented risk structures, ARS-IGS) (Dixon et al, 2012;Li et al, 2016), augmentation of target tissue included directly in the microscopic view (augmented target volume, ATV-IGS) (Woerdeman et al, 2009b), augmented cues for small targets (e.g. crosshair) included in the endoscopic video image (augmented target, AT-IGS) (DeLisi et al, 2014;DeLisi et al, 2015), augmented pathways which represent the best way to bring the instrument to a certain target area or tumor directly included in the endoscopic video image (augmented pathway, AP-IGS) (Caversaccio and Frysinger, 2003;Freysinger et al, 1997), or three-dimensional endoscopic virtual visualizations of anatomical structures (threedimensional virtual image guidance, 3DV-IGS) (Dixon et al, 2016;Dixon et al, 2014a).…”