Evaluating VR/AR Headsets for Diagnostic Imaging: A Diverticulitis Study

Virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies are advancing in the medical field, especially in radiology, where high-resolution imaging is essential. Traditionally, radiologists rely on desktop monitors that meet strict standards for luminance and resolution to interpret complex scans. However, recent developments in VR/AR headset technology have raised the question of whether these headsets can perform equally well—or even better—than desktops, especially for challenging diagnostic cases. A recent study has investigated the diagnostic performance of an Apple Vision Pro headset compared to traditional desktop monitors for identifying diverticulitis in CT scans. By examining factors like image quality, ease of use and diagnostic accuracy, it aimed to determine if VR/AR headsets could effectively support radiologists in clinical settings.

Headset Versus Desktop: Diagnostic Accuracy and Speed

In this study, six radiologists of varying experience levels were tasked with identifying cases of diverticulitis on CT scans, first using the VR/AR headset and later with a traditional desktop. Each radiologist reviewed 100 unknown scans scored on a six-level scale, ranging from “definitely no diverticulitis” to “diverticulitis with perforation.” Notably, the study’s results showed that the VR/AR headset achieved a diagnostic accuracy nearly equivalent to that of the desktop. Specifically, the area under the curve (AUC) for diverticulitis detection was 0.93 for the headset and 0.94 for the desktop, a statistically insignificant difference. This suggests that VR/AR technology could match desktops in diagnostic performance, an encouraging finding for those exploring new technologies in radiology.

However, a critical difference between the two devices emerged in terms of time efficiency. The radiologists took, on average, 57 seconds per case with the headset compared to 31 seconds with the desktop. This time discrepancy may stem from radiologists’ greater familiarity with desktop monitors, which they regularly use in professional settings. Additionally, the VR/AR headset faced technical limitations, including slower download times over Wi-Fi versus the desktop’s Ethernet connection. While the study does not conclude that VR/AR headsets are more efficient than desktops, it highlights their diagnostic potential and points to areas where headset technology might improve, particularly in terms of workflow speed and data transfer.

User Experience and Device Comfort

Beyond diagnostic accuracy, the radiologists’ experience with the VR/AR headset provided valuable insights into its practicality for clinical use. Radiologists rated the headset’s ease of use positively, especially for basic functions such as centring, resizing and navigating within the viewer application. Most tasks were rated as either “somewhat easy” or “very easy,” reflecting the headset’s intuitive interface. In particular, radiologists praised the headset for its immersive 3D display capabilities, which enhanced their experience when viewing 3D reconstructions of the scans. This feature could prove advantageous for cases where three-dimensional visualisation is critical, potentially expanding the headset’s utility beyond traditional 2D diagnostic imaging.

However, comfort was a mixed experience, with some radiologists reporting mild discomfort after prolonged headset use. Factors contributing to this included physical weight, tightness around the face, and minor eye and hand control calibration issues. Comfort scores varied significantly, indicating that some radiologists found the headset wearable for long durations, while others struggled after extended periods. Although none of the radiologists reported severe motion sickness, comfort issues could limit the headset’s practicality for lengthy diagnostic sessions, which are common in radiology. This feedback underscores the need for further ergonomic improvements to the headset design, possibly through lighter materials, adjustable fit options or better ventilation, to make VR/AR devices viable for daily medical use.

Challenges and Future Potential of VR/AR in Radiology

While this pilot study demonstrates the promise of VR/AR headsets in diagnostic imaging, several challenges remain before they can be fully integrated into clinical settings. One notable limitation is the headset’s inability to fully match the desktop’s luminance calibration, essential for accurately interpreting certain imaging features. Medical imaging standards specify that displays used for diagnostic purposes must meet strict criteria for brightness and contrast, especially at low luminance levels. The VR/AR headset’s display technology, which lacks calibration tools to align with DICOM standards, may hinder its performance for some high-detail tasks. Radiologists rely on precise luminance adjustments to distinguish subtle features, such as fat stranding in diverticulitis cases, which are vital for accurate diagnosis.

Another hurdle is the disparity in device familiarity. Radiologists have years of experience with desktop-based image viewing, while VR/AR headsets are a relatively new addition. This novelty affected the time per case and may have skewed user preference results. Additionally, while the immersive nature of VR/AR makes it ideal for 3D tasks, it may not be as well-suited for 2D imaging without further refinement. However, these issues may diminish as radiologists continue to gain experience with VR/AR and manufacturers develop more advanced headsets with improved specifications. Future headsets with optimised resolution, enhanced comfort and more robust luminance calibration capabilities could offer even greater diagnostic potential and bridge the gap between novelty and familiarity.

The study offers an optimistic view of the future of VR/AR in radiology, showing that next-generation headsets can provide diagnostic accuracy on par with traditional desktop monitors for some tasks, such as detecting diverticulitis. While there are challenges to overcome, including comfort during prolonged use and limitations in luminance calibration, the headset’s immersive 3D capabilities stand out as a valuable feature. These headsets could be particularly beneficial in radiology areas requiring intricate 3D visualisation, such as surgical planning or complex anatomical assessments. Further research and development are necessary to refine headset design and align it more closely with clinical standards. With continued improvement, VR/AR headsets have the potential to transform radiology, offering clinicians new ways to interact with medical images and ultimately improving patient care.

Source: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine

Image Credit: iStock