Comparison of Conventional Methods for Bowel Length Measurement in Laparoscopic Surgery to a Novel Computer-Assisted 3D Measurement System

Purpose Accurate laparoscopic bowel length measurement (LBLM), which is used primarily in metabolic surgery, remains a challenge. This study aims to three conventional methods for LBLM, namely using visual judgment (VJ), instrument markings (IM), or premeasured tape (PT) to a novel computer-assisted 3D measurement system (BMS). Materials and Methods LBLM methods were compared using a 3D laparoscope on bowel phantoms regarding accuracy (relative error in percent, %), time in seconds (s), and number of bowel grasps. Seventy centimeters were measured seven times. As a control, the first, third, fifth, and seventh measurements were performed with VJ. The interventions IM, PT, and BMS were performed following a randomized order as the second, fourth, and sixth measurements. Results In total, 63 people participated. BMS showed better accuracy (2.1±3.7%) compared to VJ (8.7±13.7%, p=0.001), PT (4.3±6.8%, p=0.002), and IM (11±15.3%, p<0.001). Participants performed LBLM in a similar amount of time with BMS (175.7±59.7s) and PT (166.5±63.6s, p=0.35), but VJ (64.0±24.0s, p<0.001) and IM (144.9±55.4s, p=0.002) were faster. Number of bowel grasps as a measure for the risk of bowel lesions was similar for BMS (15.8±3.0) and PT (15.9±4.6, p=0.861), whereas VJ required less (14.1±3.4, p=0.004) and IM required more than BMS (22.2±6.9, p<0.001). Conclusions PT had higher accuracy than VJ and IM, and lower number of bowel grasps than IM. BMS shows great potential for more reliable LBLM. Until BMS is available in clinical routine, PT should be preferred for LBLM. Graphical abstract

Examples of the Use of the ARAMIS 3D Measurement System for the Susceptibility to Deformation Tests for the Selected Mixtures of Coal Mining Wastes

This paper presents the ARAMIS 3D system and examples of deformation susceptibility test results made on mixtures of coal mining waste and recycled tire rubber bound with the use of hydraulic binders. The ARAMIS 3D system is a measurement tool based on 3D scanning of the surface of the tested material. On the basis of the obtained 3D video image, the system allows for the continuous observation of the displacements occurring on the surface of the tested object during its load. This allows for a very detailed determination of the deformation distribution during the material loading. These types of measurement systems can be very useful, especially in the case of testing composite materials and testing materials under cyclic load conditions.

Numerical Calibration and Investigation of the Influence Of Reynolds Number on Measurements With Five-Hole Probes In Compressible Flows

This paper presents an investigation into the numerical and experimental calibration of a five-hole probe and effects of Reynolds number variations on the characteristics of the probe. The test object is a cone-type drilled elbow probe with a head diameter of 1.59 mm and a cone angle of 60°. The experimental calibration maps of four different probes of the same type and nominal geometry are compared. A significant variation of the curves can be observed especially at high yaw angles. This led to a visual inspection of the probes with a 3D measurement system. The actual geometry of the three used probes and the surface and radii in particular varied significantly from that of the unused spare probe. Furthermore, a numerical calibration map of the ideal probe was generated for a Mach number of Ma = 0.3. A comparison between the experimental and numerical calibration coefficients revealed that total pressure, yaw and pitch angle were reproduced reasonably well. The dynamic pressure coefficient, however, has a considerable offset. Finally, a parameter study of the effect of varying the Reynolds number over different yaw angles was conducted. The calibration Reynolds number is of the order of Re = 1 · 104 and was varied between 0.5 · 104 &lt; Re &lt; 6 · 104. While the results suggest that only minor measurement errors occur for yaw angle, total pressure and static pressure, a relatively large error was observed for pitch angle measurements.