Daniel A Hashimoto1, Roy Phitayakorn2, Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo2, Ozanan Meireles2. 1. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, GRB425, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. dahashimoto@partners.org. 2. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, GRB425, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of telementoring is to recreate face-to-face encounters with a digital presence. Open-surgery telementoring is limited by lack of surgeon's point-of-view cameras. Google Glass is a wearable computer that looks like a pair of glasses but is equipped with wireless connectivity, a camera, and viewing screen for video conferencing. This study aimed to assess the safety of using Google Glass by assessing the video quality of a telementoring session. METHODS: Thirty-four (n = 34) surgeons at a single institution were surveyed and blindly compared via video captured with Google Glass versus an Apple iPhone 5 during the open cholecystectomy portion of a Whipple. Surgeons were asked to evaluate the quality of the video and its adequacy for safe use in telementoring. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 107 invited surgical attendings (32%) responded to the anonymous survey. A total of 50% rated the Google Glass video as fair with the other 50% rating it as bad to poor. A total of 52.9% of respondents rated the Apple iPhone video as good. A significantly greater proportion of respondents felt Google Glass video quality was inadequate for telementoring versus the Apple iPhone's (82.4 vs 26.5%, p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.924 (95% CI 0.660-0.999, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While Google Glass provides a great breadth of functionality as a wearable device with two-way communication capabilities, current hardware limitations prevent its use as a telementoring device in surgery as the video quality is inadequate for safe telementoring. As the device is still in initial phases of development, future iterations or competitor devices may provide a better telementoring application for wearable devices.
BACKGROUND: The goal of telementoring is to recreate face-to-face encounters with a digital presence. Open-surgery telementoring is limited by lack of surgeon's point-of-view cameras. Google Glass is a wearable computer that looks like a pair of glasses but is equipped with wireless connectivity, a camera, and viewing screen for video conferencing. This study aimed to assess the safety of using Google Glass by assessing the video quality of a telementoring session. METHODS: Thirty-four (n = 34) surgeons at a single institution were surveyed and blindly compared via video captured with Google Glass versus an Apple iPhone 5 during the open cholecystectomy portion of a Whipple. Surgeons were asked to evaluate the quality of the video and its adequacy for safe use in telementoring. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 107 invited surgical attendings (32%) responded to the anonymous survey. A total of 50% rated the Google Glass video as fair with the other 50% rating it as bad to poor. A total of 52.9% of respondents rated the Apple iPhone video as good. A significantly greater proportion of respondents felt Google Glass video quality was inadequate for telementoring versus the Apple iPhone's (82.4 vs 26.5%, p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.924 (95% CI 0.660-0.999, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While Google Glass provides a great breadth of functionality as a wearable device with two-way communication capabilities, current hardware limitations prevent its use as a telementoring device in surgery as the video quality is inadequate for safe telementoring. As the device is still in initial phases of development, future iterations or competitor devices may provide a better telementoring application for wearable devices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Open surgery; Surgical education; Telementoring; Wearable technology
Authors: M Cubano; B K Poulose; M A Talamini; R Stewart; L E Antosek; R Lentz; R Nibe; M F Kutka; M Mendoza-Sagaon Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Lawrence W Way; Lygia Stewart; Walter Gantert; Kingsway Liu; Crystine M Lee; Karen Whang; John G Hunter Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Stavros A Antoniou; George A Antoniou; Jan Franzen; Stefan Bollmann; Oliver O Koch; Rudolf Pointner; Frank A Granderath Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Innes Crawford; Paul B McBeth; Mark Mitchelson; Corina Tiruta; James Ferguson; Andrew W Kirkpatrick Journal: J Emerg Trauma Shock Date: 2011-10