
Surgery Performed with Google Cardboard Saved a Baby's Life - shawndumas
http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a41632/google-cardboard-saved-a-babys-life/
======
jbandela1
The part about Cardboard just sounds like a PR stunt. From experience in
surgery, for tricky stuff we would do 3D renders of blood vessels, etc and
view them on a computer. One time for a spine case, we actually did a 3D print
of the involved vertebrae that we actually physically manipulated as we
planned our operation. This was 5-10 years ago.

Also given that the cost of an operation such as this in the multiple $100,000
range, the fact that they are resorting to Cardboard which actually is
designed to be done cheaply and without too much consideration to fidelity of
reproduction is very concerning.

TLDR: This is a publicity stunt. Good options for viewing 3D studies have been
around for at least a decade. The fact that they relied on a cheap, non-
verified system for making life and death decisions is problematic.

~~~
tomlongson
An "average user" is claiming to have beaten the world record in the racing
game "Dirt Rally" by 12 seconds using the Oculus Rift.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3z0n1l/the_oculus_r...](https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3z0n1l/the_oculus_rift_gives_a_huge_advantage_in_car/)

This story about Cardboard may be a PR stunt, but it may also be true that VR
provided powerful insight that outperforms a flat screen or even a printed
model.

VR is going to be used a lot more in situations where understanding physical
environments is important, be it Nanotech, Healthcare, Architecture... simply
because it is so immersive.

~~~
FF76
It's true that cardboard may have viable reasons for being mentioned in this
context, but the onus is on the writer to prove that this isn't a sensational
piece. As the article is right now, we can only speculate on good faith that
they had good reasoning to use cardboard vs existing methods that others have
mentioned.

~~~
tomlongson
Agreed.

------
eridius
It's unclear in what way the surgery was actually performed with Google
Cardboard.

> _" He uploaded the images of the baby's heart that he got on the CT scan [to
> a smartphone], and you put it into this cardboard box, and then in his
> office, I was looking at the baby's heart in a way that I had never been
> able to do before," said Nicklaus Children's Hospital Dr. Redmond Burke.
> "With the box, you get a stereoscopic image, and you can move around in the
> environment to see every part of the heart."_

So basically, the surgery itself actually didn't use it at all, the doctor
just used it as a stereoscopic viewer for a collection of CT images. But I'm
not sure how this is really any different at all from just loading it into a
3D modeler and spinning the camera around. Sure, actual stereoscopic 3D
probably makes it easier to get a feel for the dimensions, but there's nothing
particularly revolutionary about it that should make an impossible surgery
possible.

~~~
Zikes
If we're going to accept that stereoscopy makes an objectively positive
difference over a "flat 3D" presentation, does it not follow that the
threshold for success in this case potentially fell within that difference?

~~~
eridius
I don't think it does. Remember, we're not talking about some kind of remote-
operated robotic surgery rig, where the difference might actually affect the
movements the surgeon uses during the surgery. This was just for looking at
images in preparation for the surgery. Stereoscopic 3D can help get a feel for
the depth quickly, but I don't think there's any fundamental difference
between using that versus just spending a little more time working with a 3D
model (moving a 3D model around gets you a feel for the depth too, just not as
fast as stereoscopic imagery does).

Besides, we've had 3D monitors for years now. If there was a significant
difference here, doctors would all have switched to using 3D monitors years
ago to do this kind of preparation. Or at least, we'd have heard stories come
out before now about individual doctors that did make the switch because it
allows them to confidently perform surgeries they couldn't before.

------
sushisource
First sentence: "Google Cardboard... on your iPhone"

Immediately know that this article isn't written by someone with much tech
exposure. Yes, it runs on an iPhone. No, it's not the only smartphone in
existence, and certainly not Google's primary platform.

~~~
joezydeco
The Cardboard app works just fine on iOS. I played with a ViewMaster headset
over the holiday break using my 5S and it was very comfortable. Image quality
was great.

[http://www.amazon.com/View-Master-Virtual-Reality-Starter-
Pa...](http://www.amazon.com/View-Master-Virtual-Reality-Starter-
Pack/dp/B011EG5HJ2)

------
Cheyana
Regardless of how it was used, it'll probably show up on the final bill with
an equipment usage fee of $47,000.

------
tdeschamps
It's difficult to take this article seriously. There are lots of tools
available and more appropriate to prepare surgeries using CT scans. Check
echopixeltech for example.

------
ntaylor
Extremely misleading article.

------
FF76
Articles like these are just terrible. I can see this misleading people who
don't read the article to think that you can perform surgery with a cellphone.
At best, it's a sensational PR piece.

------
swagv
Redbook

~~~
wlesieutre
What about it?

