ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Benchmarking commercial depth sensors for intraoperative markerless registration in neurosurgery applications.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laser scanning registration for knee arthroplasty.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- Dual-Expert Landmark Localization in 3D Facial Point Clouds Under Controlled Synthetic Local Surface Loss for Rigid Initialization.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multimodal HSI-MRI system for tumor delineation in neurosurgical guidance.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study proposes a generalization of markerless patient registration in image-guided neurosurgery based on depth information. The work builds on previous research to evaluate the performance of a range of commercial depth cameras and two different registration algorithms in this context.
methodsA multimodal experimental setup was used, testing five depth cameras in seven configurations. Fiducial registration error (FRE) and target registration error (TRE) metrics were calculated using iterative closest point (ICP) and deep global registration (DGR) algorithms. A phantom head model was used to simulate clinical conditions, with cameras positioned to capture the face and craniotomy regions.
resultsThe best-performing cameras, such as the D405 and Zed-M+, achieved TRE values as low as 2.36 ± 0.46 mm and 2.49 ± 0.35 mm, respectively, compared to manual registration that obtains a 1.37 mm error. Cameras equipped with texture projectors or enhanced depth refinement demonstrated improved performance. The proposed methodology effectively characterized the suitability of the camera for the registration tasks.
conclusionThis study validates an adaptable and reproducible framework to evaluate depth cameras in neurosurgical scenarios, highlighting D405 and Zed-M + as reliable options. Future work will focus on improving depth quality through hardware and algorithmic improvements. The experimental data and the accompanying code were made publicly available to ensure reproducibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.