1 / 19

Tele-immersive Cranial Implant Design

Tele-immersive Cranial Implant Design. Chris Scharver September 12, 2001 scharver@evl.uic.edu In collaboration with Ray Evenhouse, Virtual Reality Medicine Laboratory. Cranial Prosthetics. Images from the current process Before image Magnetic resonance imaging-based model

iorwen
Download Presentation

Tele-immersive Cranial Implant Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tele-immersive Cranial Implant Design Chris ScharverSeptember 12, 2001scharver@evl.uic.edu In collaboration withRay Evenhouse, Virtual Reality Medicine Laboratory

  2. Cranial Prosthetics • Images from the current process • Before image • Magnetic resonance imaging-based model • Stereo lithography model, • After image

  3. Problem Statement Tele-immersive tools will allow cheaper and more rapid prototyping and evaluation of cranial prosthetic implants than clay and polymer modeling techniques.

  4. Current Surgical Method • Magnetic resonance scan of patient • Stereo lithography model of defect • Defect sculpted with clay • Defect cast • Implant modeled with dental wax • Implant cast • Surgery and implantation • Very expensive!

  5. Jim Foley’s Top Ten (2000) • Top ten problems in computer graphics • Updated list at Vision 2000 • #9 User interfaces for creativity

  6. Immersive Modeling • CHIMP: Chapel Hill Immersive Modeling Program (UNC) • Architecture • http://www.cs.unc.edu/~mine/chimp.html • Samuel (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) • General use • http://vr.iao.fhg.de/imodeling/samuel.en.html

  7. Skull Model • Theoretically obtained from MRI data, then converted into geometry for loading into scene graph • Manually made from the Visible Human data set

  8. Hardware Setup • PHANToM haptic device • 6DOF position and rotation • 3DOF force feedback • Tracking system • Display device • Immersive display? • Would a monitor suffice?

  9. PARIS • Prototyped using the CAVE • Hands are visiblethrough the displayscreen throughthe use of ahalf-silveredmirror screen • Tracking issimilar to anImmersaDesk

  10. Software • PHANToM • GHOST API, NT driver only • Interface with trackd SDK? • Display and scene graph • GHOST provides geometry and properties • OpenSG, Open Inventor, TGS Inventor 3.0, Performer? • Additional libraries • VTK, geolib, NURBS++, CAVERNsoft

  11. e-Touch 3D • Open module API and building tool • NT and Solaris • OpenGL • GHOST SDK support • CAVELib, trackd, and support for other platforms?

  12. Defect Specification • Outline with “connect the dots” • Intersection testing • Performer provides the ray casting • Draping algorithms • Volumetric collision detection

  13. Modeling Method? • Parametric surfaces • Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS) • These are surfaces, not volumes • Constructive solid geometry • Most algorithm implement only primitives • Implementation with polygons more difficult • Metaballs • Blobby modeling • Already used for haptic clay applications

  14. Input from Artists • Constraints • Implant must be separate piece • Cannot simply copy and paste the other side • Minute refinement is required • What kinds of tools would you use? • How would you apply 2D modeling tools to a tele-immersive environment?

  15. Collaborative Modeling? • Mutual exclusions in interaction • Communication between the participants • Likely only one haptic user • Audio conferencing • Evaluation methods • Photographs of patient • Side by side comparisons • Overlays • “Teacher-student” paradigm

  16. Thesis Concentration • Not trying to create the ultimate modeling package! • What aspects of tele-immersion are important to this usage? • Is it worth using these technologies in this manner? • What are the benefits and pitfalls?

  17. General Time Frame • September-October • Install libraries, hook up hardware • Determine incompatibilities • October-February • Interaction and modeling programming • February-May • Testing, evaluation, refinement • Retesting

  18. Possible Consequences • Patient is not required to travel hundreds of miles until the surgury is planned • Cost of production is significantly lower than the current process • Tangible and quantifiablecontribution of virtual realitytechnology to medicine.

  19. Credits • http://www.bvis.uic.edu/VRML/Research/CranialImplants/CranialImplants01.htm • http://www.evl.uic.edu/images/research/PARIS2.jpg • http://www.sensable.com/ • http://www.etouch3d.org/etouch.htm

More Related