BACKGROUND:Augmented reality (AR) surgical navigation systems, designed to increase accuracy and efficiency, have been shown to negatively impact on attention. We wished to assess the effect "head-up" AR displays have on attention, efficiency, and accuracy, while performing a surgical task, compared with the same information being presented on a submonitor (SM). METHODS:Fifty experienced otolaryngology surgeons (n = 42) and senior otolaryngology trainees (n = 8) performed anendoscopic surgical navigation exercise on a predissected cadaveric model. Computed tomography-generated anatomic contours were fused with the endoscopic image to provide an AR view. Subjects were randomized to perform the task with a standard endoscopic monitor with the AR navigation displayed on an SM or with AR as a single display. Accuracy, task completion time, and the recognition of unexpected findings (a foreign body and a critical complication) were recorded. RESULTS:Recognition of the foreign body was significantly better in the SM group (15/25 [60%]) compared with the AR alone group (8/25 [32%]; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in task completion time (p = 0.83) or accuracy (p = 0.78) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Providing identical surgical navigation on a SM, rather than on a single head-up display, reduced the level of inattentional blindness as measured by detection of unexpected findings. These gains were achieved without any measurable impact on efficiency or accuracy. AR displays may distract the user and we caution injudicious adoption of this technology for medical procedures.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Augmented reality (AR) surgical navigation systems, designed to increase accuracy and efficiency, have been shown to negatively impact on attention. We wished to assess the effect "head-up" AR displays have on attention, efficiency, and accuracy, while performing a surgical task, compared with the same information being presented on a submonitor (SM). METHODS: Fifty experienced otolaryngology surgeons (n = 42) and senior otolaryngology trainees (n = 8) performed an endoscopic surgical navigation exercise on a predissected cadaveric model. Computed tomography-generated anatomic contours were fused with the endoscopic image to provide an AR view. Subjects were randomized to perform the task with a standard endoscopic monitor with the AR navigation displayed on an SM or with AR as a single display. Accuracy, task completion time, and the recognition of unexpected findings (a foreign body and a critical complication) were recorded. RESULTS: Recognition of the foreign body was significantly better in the SM group (15/25 [60%]) compared with the AR alone group (8/25 [32%]; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in task completion time (p = 0.83) or accuracy (p = 0.78) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Providing identical surgical navigation on a SM, rather than on a single head-up display, reduced the level of inattentional blindness as measured by detection of unexpected findings. These gains were achieved without any measurable impact on efficiency or accuracy. AR displays may distract the user and we caution injudicious adoption of this technology for medical procedures.
Authors: Jonathan L McJunkin; Pawina Jiramongkolchai; Woenho Chung; Michael Southworth; Nedim Durakovic; Craig A Buchman; Jonathan R Silva Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: K Kalaiarasan; Lavanya Prathap; M Ayyadurai; P Subhashini; T Tamilselvi; T Avudaiappan; I Infant Raj; Samson Alemayehu Mamo; Amine Mezni Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Zeshu Zhang; Jing Pei; Dong Wang; Qi Gan; Jian Ye; Jian Yue; Benzhong Wang; Stephen P Povoski; Edward W Martin; Charles L Hitchcock; Alper Yilmaz; Michael F Tweedle; Pengfei Shao; Ronald X Xu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marco Lai; Simon Skyrman; Caifeng Shan; Drazenko Babic; Robert Homan; Erik Edström; Oscar Persson; Gustav Burström; Adrian Elmi-Terander; Benno H W Hendriks; Peter H N de With Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.240