I might just have to give the Hololens 2 another try then. Still fairly cumbersome in the OR but not too many options. An I’ve learned that the only way to really assess these devices is to wear them yourself. The listed display resolution is 1440x936, whereas the one I’m using is a 4K display with each eye field receiving 1920x1080. How detailed are these images when viewing through the device? The best use cases in pediatrics are things like conjoined twins and tumors with complex, irregular vasculature. Those can be really painful to segment, and some of the vessels are 1-2 mm in diameter (the IVC on some of these kids is around 1-1.5 cm).
The view on the spatial display reminds me a little of the old active shutter glasses and 3D, especially in programs that aren’t optimized for stereoscopic display (looks like a bunch of cardboard cutouts moving in parallel). Also if you don’t optimize focal length it’s easy to end up cross-eyed. 10 years ago I owned both a 3D vision monitor and a 3D television , but the technology seems to have improved significantly since then. Again thanks for your insight - not much experience with this kind of thing in pediatric surgery world so its nice to discuss with someone who knows this stuff.