H Borgmann1, M Rodríguez Socarrás2, J Salem3, I Tsaur4, J Gomez Rivas5, E Barret6, L Tortolero2. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. borgmann.hendrik@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Alvaro Cunqueiro University Hospital, Vigo, Spain. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 6. Department of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France.
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Google Glass; Surgical training; Technology; Urology; Wearables
Authors: Andrew C W Baldwin; Hari R Mallidi; John C Baldwin; Elena Sandoval; William E Cohn; O H Frazier; Steve K Singh Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Peter R Chai; Roger Y Wu; Megan L Ranney; Jayne Bird; Sandy Chai; Brian Zink; Paul S Porter Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Omar M Jeroudi; George Christakopoulos; George Christopoulos; Anna Kotsia; Megan A Kypreos; Bavana V Rangan; Subhash Banerjee; Emmanouil S Brilakis Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Patrick M Russell; Michael Mallin; Scott T Youngquist; Jennifer Cotton; Nael Aboul-Hosn; Matt Dawson Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Zachary E Brewer; Hutchinson C Fann; W David Ogden; Thomas A Burdon; Ahmad Y Sheikh Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: İlkan Tatar; Emre Huri; İlker Selçuk; Young Lee Moon; Alberto Paoluzzi; Andreas Skolarikos Journal: Turk J Med Sci Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 0.973
Authors: Gerd Reis; Mehmet Yilmaz; Jason Rambach; Alain Pagani; Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola; Arkadiusz Miernik; Paul Lesur; Nareg Minaskan Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2021-05-13