Feasibility and Safety of Augmented Reality-assisted Urological Surgery Using Smartglass

Overview

Journal World J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2016 Oct 21

PMID 27761715

Citations 20

Authors

H Borgmann

M Rodriguez Socarras

J Salem

I Tsaur

J Gomez Rivas

E Barret

L Tortolero

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Metaverse Wearables for Immersive Digital Healthcare: A Review.

Kim K, Yang H, Lee J, Lee W Adv Sci (Weinh). 2023; 10(31):e2303234.

PMID: 37740417 PMC: 10625124. DOI: 10.1002/advs.202303234.

Towards Wearable Augmented Reality in Healthcare: A Comparative Survey and Analysis of Head-Mounted Displays.

Baashar Y, Alkawsi G, Wan Ahmad W, Alomari M, Alhussian H, Tiong S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(5).

PMID: 36900951 PMC: 10002206. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20053940.

The Advantage of Using an Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display in Ultrasonography-Guided Needle Biopsy Procedures: A Prospective Randomized Study.

Shimizu T, Oba T, Ito K J Clin Med. 2023; 12(2).

PMID: 36675443 PMC: 9865023. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12020512.

The impact of extended reality on surgery: a scoping review.

Zhang J, Lu V, Khanduja V Int Orthop. 2023; 47(3):611-621.

PMID: 36645474 PMC: 9841146. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05663-z.

Use of Extended Reality in Medical Education: An Integrative Review.

Curran V, Xu X, Aydin M, Meruvia-Pastor O Med Sci Educ. 2022; 33(1):275-286.

PMID: 36569366 PMC: 9761044. DOI: 10.1007/s40670-022-01698-4.

References

Baldwin A, Mallidi H, Baldwin J, Sandoval E, Cohn W, Frazier O . Through the Looking Glass: Real-Time Video Using 'Smart' Technology Provides Enhanced Intraoperative Logistics. World J Surg. 2015; 40(1):242-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-015-3235-x. View

Yu J, Ferniany W, Guthrie B, Parekh S, Ponce B . Lessons Learned From Google Glass: Telemedical Spark or Unfulfilled Promise?. Surg Innov. 2015; 23(2):156-65. DOI: 10.1177/1553350615597085. View

Russell P, Mallin M, Youngquist S, Cotton J, Aboul-Hosn N, Dawson M . First "glass" education: telementored cardiac ultrasonography using Google Glass- a pilot study. Acad Emerg Med. 2014; 21(11):1297-9. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12504. View

Slade Shantz J, Veillette C . The application of wearable technology in surgery: ensuring the positive impact of the wearable revolution on surgical patients. Front Surg. 2015; 1:39. PMC: 4286964. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2014.00039. View

Armstrong D, Rankin T, Giovinco N, Mills J, Matsuoka Y . A heads-up display for diabetic limb salvage surgery: a view through the google looking glass. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014; 8(5):951-6. PMC: 4455368. DOI: 10.1177/1932296814535561. View

Brewer Z, Fann H, Ogden W, Burdon T, Sheikh A . Inheriting the Learner's View: A Google Glass-Based Wearable Computing Platform for Improving Surgical Trainee Performance. J Surg Educ. 2016; 73(4):682-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.02.005. View

Chai P, Wu R, Ranney M, Bird J, Chai S, Zink B . Feasibility and Acceptability of Google Glass for Emergency Department Dermatology Consultations. JAMA Dermatol. 2015; 151(7):794-6. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.0248. View

Young K, Stephens A, Stephan K, Stuart G . In the eye of the beholder: A simulator study of the impact of Google Glass on driving performance. Accid Anal Prev. 2015; 86:68-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.010. View

Chai P, Babu K, Boyer E . The Feasibility and Acceptability of Google Glass for Teletoxicology Consults. J Med Toxicol. 2015; 11(3):283-7. PMC: 4547955. DOI: 10.1007/s13181-015-0495-7. View

10.

Jeroudi O, Christakopoulos G, Christopoulos G, Kotsia A, Kypreos M, Rangan B . Accuracy of remote electrocardiogram interpretation with the use of Google Glass technology. Am J Cardiol. 2014; 115(3):374-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.11.008. View

11.

Chimenti P, Mitten D . Google Glass as an Alternative to Standard Fluoroscopic Visualization for Percutaneous Fixation of Hand Fractures: A Pilot Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 136(2):328-330. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001453. View

12.

Drake-Brockman T, Datta A, von Ungern-Sternberg B . Patient monitoring with Google Glass: a pilot study of a novel monitoring technology. Paediatr Anaesth. 2016; 26(5):539-46. DOI: 10.1111/pan.12879. View

13.

Rahimy E, Garg S . Google Glass for Recording Scleral Buckling Surgery. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015; 133(6):710-1. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.0465. View

14.

Evans H, OShea D, Morris A, Keys K, Wright A, Schaad D . A comparison of Google Glass and traditional video vantage points for bedside procedural skill assessment. Am J Surg. 2015; 211(2):336-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.07.029. View

15.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P . Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(2):205-13. PMC: 1360123. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. View

16.

Davis C, Rosenfield L . Looking at plastic surgery through Google Glass: part 1. Systematic review of Google Glass evidence and the first plastic surgical procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 135(3):918-928. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001056. View

17.

Dickey R, Srikishen N, Lipshultz L, Spiess P, Carrion R, Hakky T . Augmented reality assisted surgery: a urologic training tool. Asian J Androl. 2015; 18(5):732-4. PMC: 5000796. DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.166436. View

18.

Albrecht U, von Jan U, Kuebler J, Zoeller C, Lacher M, Muensterer O . Google Glass for documentation of medical findings: evaluation in forensic medicine. J Med Internet Res. 2014; 16(2):e53. PMC: 3936278. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3225. View

19.

Liebert C, Zayed M, Aalami O, Tran J, Lau J . Novel Use of Google Glass for Procedural Wireless Vital Sign Monitoring. Surg Innov. 2016; 23(4):366-73. DOI: 10.1177/1553350616630142. View

20.

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