BACKGROUND: Integrated operation systems were developed for centralization and easy control of all components within the operating room (OR). These systems represent central units that use communication technology to connect and control various components of the OR. Voice control that is independent of the speaker has been a pioneering innovation in the central control of different OR components. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the utility of two voice-activated control systems, the Siemens Integrated OR System (SIOS, Siemens Medical Solutions, Siemens AG) and the OR1 (Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG), for delivery of commands to specific OR equipment. METHODS: To compare the two systems, actions such as adjusting the operating table, increasing gas pressure, switching on the video recorder, and controlling the endolight source were defined according to a study protocol. These actions were to be executed by test persons through speech and manual control after a suitable training period. The parameters evaluated were training time, time to execute each action, number of repeated commands, and number of functional errors. RESULTS: Seventy-four test persons from five nations were selected to participate. The numbers of repeated commands and functional errors differed significantly between systems in all user groups in favor of the SIOS (mean repeated commands for surgeons: SIOS, 2.4; OR1, 14.7, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The SIOS voice control was more effective and more reliable than that of the OR1. Importantly, unlike the OR1, the SIOS produced no functional errors. The appropriate conditions for greater acceptance of these systems must be considered, together with additional technical improvements and possible combinations of advantages of the available systems.
BACKGROUND: Integrated operation systems were developed for centralization and easy control of all components within the operating room (OR). These systems represent central units that use communication technology to connect and control various components of the OR. Voice control that is independent of the speaker has been a pioneering innovation in the central control of different OR components. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the utility of two voice-activated control systems, the Siemens Integrated OR System (SIOS, Siemens Medical Solutions, Siemens AG) and the OR1 (Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG), for delivery of commands to specific OR equipment. METHODS: To compare the two systems, actions such as adjusting the operating table, increasing gas pressure, switching on the video recorder, and controlling the endolight source were defined according to a study protocol. These actions were to be executed by test persons through speech and manual control after a suitable training period. The parameters evaluated were training time, time to execute each action, number of repeated commands, and number of functional errors. RESULTS: Seventy-four test persons from five nations were selected to participate. The numbers of repeated commands and functional errors differed significantly between systems in all user groups in favor of the SIOS (mean repeated commands for surgeons: SIOS, 2.4; OR1, 14.7, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The SIOS voice control was more effective and more reliable than that of the OR1. Importantly, unlike the OR1, the SIOS produced no functional errors. The appropriate conditions for greater acceptance of these systems must be considered, together with additional technical improvements and possible combinations of advantages of the available systems.
Authors: H G Kenngott; M Wagner; F Nickel; A L Wekerle; A Preukschas; M Apitz; T Schulte; R Rempel; P Mietkowski; F Wagner; A Termer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 3.445