Google Glass in the Operating Room: The Plastic Surgeon’s Perspective

Sinkin, Jeremy C.; Rahman, Omar; Nahabedian, Maurice Y.

doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000002307

Cited by 36 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The weight of the device is low (579 grams, see supplementary Appendix ), and the use of AR devices of comparable weight did not cause pain or tiredness (Sinkin et al. 2016 , Léger et al. 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgery guided by mixed reality: presentation of a proof of concept

Grégory

Sledge³

et al. 2018

Acta Orthopaedica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgery guided by mixed reality: presentation of a proof of concept

Grégory

Sledge³

et al. 2018

Acta Orthopaedica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The vast majority of the studies examined the potential use of Google Glass as an intraoperative intervention (27/31, 87%) [ 12 - 31 , 35 - 42 ], whereas others observed its potential use in preoperative (4/31, 13%) [ 19 , 27 , 32 , 33 ] and postoperative (5/31, 16%) [ 15 , 19 , 27 , 30 , 34 ] settings. Only a few studies evaluated the use of Google Glass in more than one of these settings (4/31, 13%) [ 15 , 19 , 27 , 30 ]. In many cases, multiple functions and applications of Google Glass were tested in a single study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Google Glass in Surgical Settings: Systematic Review

Wei¹,

Dougherty²,

Myers³

et al. 2018

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn recent years, wearable devices have become increasingly attractive and the health care industry has been especially drawn to Google Glass because of its ability to serve as a head-mounted wearable device. The use of Google Glass in surgical settings is of particular interest due to the hands-free device potential to streamline workflow and maintain sterile conditions in an operating room environment.ObjectiveThe aim is to conduct a systematic evaluation of the literature on the feasibility and acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings and to assess the potential benefits and limitations of its application.MethodsThe literature was searched for articles published between January 2013 and May 2017. The search included the following databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO (EBSCO), and IEEE Xplore. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text articles. Original research articles that evaluated the feasibility, usability, or acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings were included. This review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Results of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsOf the 520 records obtained, 31 met all predefined criteria and were included in this review. Google Glass was used in various surgical specialties. Most studies were in the United States (23/31, 74%) and all were conducted in hospital settings: 29 in adult hospitals (29/31, 94%) and two in children’s hospitals (2/31, 7%). Sample sizes of participants who wore Google Glass ranged from 1 to 40. Of the 31 studies, 25 (81%) were conducted under real-time conditions or actual clinical care settings, whereas the other six (19%) were conducted under simulated environment. Twenty-six studies were pilot or feasibility studies (84%), three were case studies (10%), and two were randomized controlled trials (6%). The majority of studies examined the potential use of Google Glass as an intraoperative intervention (27/31, 87%), whereas others observed its potential use in preoperative (4/31, 13%) and postoperative settings (5/31, 16%). Google Glass was utilized as a videography and photography device (21/31, 68%), a vital sign monitor (6/31, 19%), a surgical navigation display (5/31, 16%), and as a videoconferencing tool to communicate with remote surgeons intraoperatively (5/31, 16%). Most studies reported moderate or high acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings. The main reported limitations of using Google Glass utilization were short battery life (8/31, 26%) and difficulty with hands-free features (5/31, 16%).ConclusionsThere are promising feasibility and usability data of using Google Glass in surgical settings with particular benefits for surgical education and training. Despite existing technical limitations, Google Glass was generally well received and several studies in surgical settings acknowledged its potential for training, consultation, patient monitoring, and a...

show abstract

“…Potentially disruptive technologies such as Google Glass create excitement for the possible applications that they can have in health care; however, the use of new tools should be thoroughly evaluated and validated before applying them in the medical or biomedical fields. Google Glass has been tested in many medical fields such as clinical simulations [ 5 ], surgery [ 9 - 13 ], and neuropsychiatry [ 8 ], but to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to assess the potential of Google Glass in veterinary medicine. Both devices tested in our study achieved the set goals and both allowed a complete photographic documentation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, in neuropsychiatry, the usability and acceptability of Google Glass has been tested in children with autism spectrum disorder [ 8 ]. Similarly, in surgical settings, the multitasking capabilities of the device have allowed Google Glass to be tested in many surgical subfields such as cardiac surgery [ 9 ], neurosurgery [ 10 ], orthopedics [ 11 ], general surgery [ 12 ], and plastic surgery [ 13 ]. In these studies, Google Glass has been used as a tool to monitor vital signs, as an education instrument, and for telemonitoring and audiovisual recording.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Google Glass for Photographic Documentation in Veterinary Forensic Pathology: Usability Study

Piegari

Iovane

Carletti

et al. 2018

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGoogle Glass is a head-mounted device designed in the shape of a pair of eyeglasses equipped with a 5.0-megapixel integrated camera and capable of taking pictures with simple voice commands.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to determine whether Google Glass is fit for veterinary forensic pathology purposes.MethodsA total of 44 forensic necropsies of 2 different species (22 dogs and 22 cats) were performed by 2 pathologists; each pathologist conducted 11 necropsies of each species and, for each photographic acquisition, the images were taken with a Google Glass device and a Nikon D3200 digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera. The pictures were collected, divided into 3 groups (based on the external appearance of the animal, organs, and anatomical details), and evaluated by 5 forensic pathologists using a 5-point score system. The parameters assessed were overall color settings, region of interest, sharpness, and brightness. To evaluate the difference in mean duration between necropsies conduced with Google Glass and DSLR camera and to assess the battery consumption of the devices, an additional number of 16 necropsies were performed by the 2 pathologists. In these cases, Google Glass was used for photographic reports in 8 cases (4 dogs and 4 cats) and a Nikon D3200 reflex camera in the other 8 cases. Statistical evaluations were performed to assess the differences in ratings between the quality of the images taken with both devices.ResultsThe images taken with Google Glass received significantly lower ratings than those acquired with reflex camera for all 4 assessed parameters (P<.001). In particular, for the pictures of Groups A and B taken with Google Glass, the sum of frequency of ratings 5 (very good) and 4 (good) was between 50% and 77% for all 4 assessed parameters. The lowest ratings were observed for the pictures of Group C, with a sum of frequency of ratings 5 and 4 of 21.1% (342/1602) for region of interest, 26% (421/1602) for sharpness, 35.5% (575/1602) for overall color settings, and 61.4% (995/1602) for brightness. Furthermore, we found a significant reduction in the mean execution time for necropsy conduced with the Google Glass with respect to the reflex group (P<.001). However, Google Glass drained the battery very quickly.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that Google Glass is usable in veterinary forensic pathology. In particular, the image quality of Groups A and B seemed adequate for forensic photographic documentation purposes, although the quality was lower than that with the reflex camera. However, in this step of development, the high frequency of poor ratings observed for the pictures of Group C suggest that the device is not suitable for taking pictures of small anatomical details or close-ups of the injuries.

show abstract

Google Glass in the Operating Room: The Plastic Surgeon’s Perspective

Cited by 36 publications

References 15 publications

Surgery guided by mixed reality: presentation of a proof of concept

Surgery guided by mixed reality: presentation of a proof of concept

Using Google Glass in Surgical Settings: Systematic Review

Assessment of Google Glass for Photographic Documentation in Veterinary Forensic Pathology: Usability Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About