nach oben

World Journal of Urology

Erschienen in:

19.10.2016 | Original Article

Feasibility and safety of augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using smartglass

verfasst von: H. Borgmann, M. Rodríguez Socarrás, J. Salem, I. Tsaur, J. Gomez Rivas, E. Barret, L. Tortolero

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 6/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the feasibility, safety and usefulness of augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using smartglass (SG).

Methods

Seven urological surgeons (3 board urologists and 4 urology residents) performed augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using SG for 10 different types of operations and a total of 31 urological operations. Feasibility was assessed using technical metadata (number of photographs taken/number of videos recorded/video time recorded) and structured interviews with the urologists on their use of SG. Safety was evaluated by recording complications and grading according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Usefulness of SG for urological surgery was queried in structured interviews and in a survey.

Results

The implementation of SG use during urological surgery was feasible with no intrinsic (technical defect) or extrinsic (inability to control the SG function) obstacles being observed. SG use was safe as no grade 3–5 complications occurred for the series of 31 urological surgeries of different complexities. Technical applications of SG included taking photographs/recording videos for teaching and documentation, hands-free teleconsultation, reviewing patients’ medical records and images and searching the internet for health information. Overall usefulness of SG for urological surgery was rated as very high by 43 % and high by 29 % of surgeons.

Conclusions

Augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using SG is both feasible and safe and also provides several useful functions for urological surgeons. Further developments and investigations are required in the near future to harvest the great potential of this exciting technology for urological surgery.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Slade Shantz JA, Veillette CJ (2014) The application of wearable technology in surgery: ensuring the positive impact of the wearable revolution on surgical patients. Front Surg 1:39. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2014.00039 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Forbes (2013) Inside the operating room with Google Glass. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnosta/2013/06/21/google-glass-in-the-operating-room/-7cf318605d61. Accessed 28 May 2016

Rahimy E, Garg SJ (2015) Google Glass for recording scleral buckling surgery. JAMA Ophthalmol 133(6):710–711. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.0465 CrossRefPubMed

Brewer ZE, Fann HC, Ogden WD, Burdon TA, Sheikh AY (2016) Inheriting the learner’s view: a Google Glass-based wearable computing platform for improving surgical trainee performance. J Surg Educ. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.02.005 PubMed

Datta N, MacQueen IT, Schroeder AD, Wilson JJ, Espinoza JC, Wagner JP, Filipi CJ, Chen DC (2015) Wearable technology for global surgical teleproctoring. J Surg Educ 72(6):1290–1295. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.07.004 CrossRefPubMed

Kantor J (2014) First look: Google Glass in dermatology, Mohs surgery, and surgical reconstruction. JAMA Dermatol 150(11):1191. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.1558 CrossRefPubMed

Armstrong DG, Rankin TM, Giovinco NA, Mills JL, Matsuoka Y (2014) A heads-up display for diabetic limb salvage surgery: a view through the google looking glass. J Diabetes Sci Technol 8(5):951–956. doi:10.1177/1932296814535561 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Muensterer OJ, Lacher M, Zoeller C, Bronstein M, Kubler J (2014) Google Glass in pediatric surgery: an exploratory study. Int J Surg 12(4):281–289. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.02.003 CrossRefPubMed

Davis CR, Rosenfield LK (2015) Looking at plastic surgery through Google Glass: part 1. Systematic review of Google Glass evidence and the first plastic surgical procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(3):918–928. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001056 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Dickey RM, Srikishen N, Lipshultz LI, Spiess PE, Carrion RE, Hakky TS (2015) Augmented reality assisted surgery: a urologic training tool. Asian J Androl. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.166436 PubMedCentral

11.

Yu J, Ferniany W, Guthrie B, Parekh SG, Ponce B (2016) Lessons learned from Google Glass: telemedical spark or unfulfilled promise? Surg Innov 23(2):156–165. doi:10.1177/1553350615597085 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Likert T (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22(140):55

14.

Drake-Brockman TF, Datta A, von Ungern-Sternberg BS (2016) Patient monitoring with Google Glass: a pilot study of a novel monitoring technology. Paediatr Anaesth 26(5):539–546. doi:10.1111/pan.12879 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Liebert CA, Zayed MA, Aalami O, Tran J, Lau JN (2016) Novel use of Google Glass for procedural wireless vital sign monitoring. Surg Innov. doi:10.1177/1553350616630142 PubMed

16.

Evans HL, O’Shea DJ, Morris AE, Keys KA, Wright AS, Schaad DC, Ilgen JS (2016) A comparison of Google Glass and traditional video vantage points for bedside procedural skill assessment. Am J Surg 211(2):336–342. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.07.029 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Baldwin AC, Mallidi HR, Baldwin JC, Sandoval E, Cohn WE, Frazier OH, Singh SK (2016) Through the looking glass: real-time video using ‘Smart’ technology provides enhanced intraoperative logistics. World J Surg 40(1):242–244. doi:10.1007/s00268-015-3235-x CrossRefPubMed

18.

Chai PR, Babu KM, Boyer EW (2015) The feasibility and acceptability of Google Glass for teletoxicology consults. J Med Toxicol 11(3):283–287. doi:10.1007/s13181-015-0495-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Chimenti PC, Mitten DJ (2015) Google Glass as an alternative to standard fluoroscopic visualization for percutaneous fixation of hand fractures: a pilot study. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(2):328–330. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001453 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Chai PR, Wu RY, Ranney ML, Bird J, Chai S, Zink B, Porter PS (2015) Feasibility and acceptability of Google Glass for emergency department dermatology consultations. JAMA Dermatol 151(7):794–796. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.0248 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Russell PM, Mallin M, Youngquist ST, Cotton J, Aboul-Hosn N, Dawson M (2014) First “glass” education: telementored cardiac ultrasonography using Google Glass- a pilot study. Acad Emerg Med 21(11):1297–1299. doi:10.1111/acem.12504 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Albrecht UV, von Jan U, Kuebler J, Zoeller C, Lacher M, Muensterer OJ, Ettinger M, Klintschar M, Hagemeier L (2014) Google Glass for documentation of medical findings: evaluation in forensic medicine. J Med Internet Res 16(2):e53. doi:10.2196/jmir.3225 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Young KL, Stephens AN, Stephan KL, Stuart GW (2016) In the eye of the beholder: a simulator study of the impact of Google Glass on driving performance. Accid Anal Prev 86:68–75. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.010 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Jeroudi OM, Christakopoulos G, Christopoulos G, Kotsia A, Kypreos MA, Rangan BV, Banerjee S, Brilakis ES (2015) Accuracy of remote electrocardiogram interpretation with the use of Google Glass technology. Am J Cardiol 115(3):374–377. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.11.008 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Feasibility and safety of augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using smartglass
verfasst von: H. Borgmann
M. Rodríguez Socarrás
J. Salem
I. Tsaur
J. Gomez Rivas
E. Barret
L. Tortolero
Publikationsdatum: 19.10.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1956-6

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Chronische Unterbauch- und Viszeralschmerzen in der Praxis managen"

Springer Medizin

Feasibility and safety of augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using smartglass

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Männern mit Zystitis Schmalband-Antibiotika verordnen

Bestrahlung nach Prostatektomie: mehr Schaden als Nutzen?

D-Mannose ohne Nutzen in der Prävention von HWI-Rezidiven

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Update Urologie

Live-Webinar "Chronische Unterbauch- und Viszeralschmerzen in der Praxis managen"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2017

Vitamins, metabolomics, and prostate cancer

Learning curves and perioperative outcomes after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a comparison between GreenLight 532-nm and holmium lasers

Androgen receptor expression is associated with adverse pathological features in ureteral but not in pelvicalyceal urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract

Uncovering the real outcomes of active renal stone treatment by utilizing non-contrast computer tomography: a systematic review of the current literature

Bowel function in patients with urinary diversion: a gender-matched comparison of continent urinary diversion with the ileocecal pouch and ileal conduit

National economic and development indicators and international variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality: an ecological analysis

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Männern mit Zystitis Schmalband-Antibiotika verordnen

Bestrahlung nach Prostatektomie: mehr Schaden als Nutzen?

D-Mannose ohne Nutzen in der Prävention von HWI-Rezidiven

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Update Urologie