Operation-Microscope-Mounted Touch Display Tablet Computer for Intraoperative Imaging Visualization

Soehngen, Eric; Rahmah, Nunung Nur; Kakizawa, Yukinari; Horiuchi, Tetsuyoshi; Fujii, Yu; Kiuchi, Takafumi; Hongo, Kazuhiro

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.06.017

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One such study demonstrated that the high resolution display of the iPad performed equally to conventional desktop LCD monitors in preliminary interpretation of emergent CT brain exams after minor modifications were made to the iPad’s zoom function capabilities [23]. Sterile tablet computers have been successfully utilized in the operating room by neurosurgeons as a substitution to expensive commercial intraoperative imaging equipment for image guidance during tumor resection procedures [24]. Another recent publication found Internal Medicine residents felt subjectively more efficient on the wards when they were provided with iPad tablets loaded with the hospital electronic medical record access program.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile Tablet Use among Academic Physicians and Trainees

Sclafani¹,

Tirrell

Franko³

2013

J Med Syst

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid adoption rate and integration of mobile technology (tablet computing devices and smartphones) by physicians is reshaping the current clinical landscape. These devices have sparked an evolution in a variety of arenas, including educational media dissemination, remote patient data access and point of care applications. Quantifying usage patterns of clinical applications of mobile technology is of interest to understand how these technologies are shaping current clinical care. A digital survey examining mobile tablet and associated application usage was administered via email to all ACGME training programs. Data regarding respondent specialty, level of training, and habits of tablet usage were collected and analyzed. 40 % of respondents used a tablet, of which the iPad was the most popular. Nearly half of the tablet owners reported using the tablet in clinical settings; the most commonly used application types were point of care and electronic medical record access. Increased level of training was associated with decreased support for mobile computing improving physician capabilities and patient interactions. There was strong and consistent desire for institutional support of mobile computing and integration of mobile computing technology into medical education. While many physicians are currently purchasing mobile devices, often without institutional support, successful integration of these devices into the clinical setting is still developing. Potential reasons behind the low adoption rate may include interference of technology in doctor-patient interactions or the lack of appropriate applications available for download. However, the results convincingly demonstrate that physicians recognize a potential utility in mobile computing, indicated by their desire for institutional support and integration of mobile technology into medical education. It is likely that the use of tablet computers in clinical practice will expand in the future. Thus, we believe medical institutions, providers, educators, and developers should collaborate in ways that enhance the efficacy, reliability, and safety of integrating these devices into daily medical practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile Tablet Use among Academic Physicians and Trainees

Sclafani¹,

Tirrell

Franko³

2013

J Med Syst

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To our knowledge, this is the first study to perform a head-tohead comparison of these devices, though prior studies analyzing the iPad and Kinect individually have reported a generally positive response towards their utility in the operative environment [11,13,14,[16][17][18][19]. Most users favored the usability of the iPad (mean score of 13.5) in almost every basic interaction over the Loop Pointer (12.9) and Kinect (9.9; Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Both measures corresponded; namely, the Kinect has least concern and the iPad has the most concern in jeopardizing the sterile field. Notably, prior studies have employed varying techniques to allow for sterility, including sealing the unit between two pieces of Tegaderm by a sterile operator [13], use of a sterile-wrapped iPad touch-display system mounted on an operation microscope positioned just above the surgeon for neurosurgical application [14], and sterile-bagged iPad intra-operative CT image review during lung segmentectomy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Kinect brings a new generation of motion tracking with far greater accuracy and response time. Some have described using the iPad and a gyroscopic mouse for surgery or radiology; however, these studies do not provide a comparison across devices [13][14][15]. The suitability of each of these devices has not been well evaluated for the radiologist, particularly for intra-procedural use, and comparative head-tohead analysis has not been performed [11].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Efficacy of New Interfaces for Intra-procedural Imaging Review: the Microsoft Kinect, Hillcrest Labs Loop Pointer, and the Apple iPad

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We adapted and evaluated the Microsoft Kinect (touchless interface), Hillcrest Labs Loop Pointer (gyroscopic mouse), and the Apple iPad (multi-touch tablet) for intra-procedural imaging review efficacy in a simulation using MIM Software DICOM viewers. Using each device, 29 radiologists executed five basic interactions to complete the overall task of measuring an 8.1-cm hepatic lesion: scroll, window, zoom, pan, and measure. For each interaction, participants assessed the devices on a 3-point subjective scale (3 = highest usability score). The five individual scores were summed to calculate a subjective composite usability score (max 15 points). Overall task time to completion was recorded. Each user also assessed each device for its potential to jeopardize a sterile field. The composite usability scores were as follows: Kinect 9.9 (out of 15.0; SD = 2.8), Loop Pointer 12.9 (SD = 13.5), and iPad 13.5 (SD = 1.8). Mean task completion times were as follows: Kinect 156.7 s (SD = 86.5), Loop Pointer 51.5 s (SD = 30.6), and iPad 41.1 s (SD = 25.3). The mean hepatic lesion measurements were as follows: Kinect was 7.3 cm (SD = 0.9), Loop Pointer 7.8 cm (SD = 1.1), and iPad 8.2 cm (SD = 1.2). The mean deviations from true hepatic lesion measurement were as follows: Kinect 1.0 cm and for both the Loop Pointer and iPad, 0.9 cm (SD = 0.7). The Kinect had the least and iPad had the most subjective concern for compromising the sterile field. A new intra-operative imaging review interface may be near. Most surveyed foresee these devices as useful in procedures, and most do not anticipate problems with a sterile field. An ideal device would combine iPad's usability and accuracy with the Kinect's touchless aspect.

show abstract

“…Such systems are mainly based on voice control devices and touch-sensitive panels. [5][6][7][8] However, their use may be associated with problems related to misrecognition of commands or the necessity of sterile isolation. On the other hand, the majority of currently available motion recognition devices are typically driven by attached color, electronic, or infrared markers or sensors fixed on the body of the operator.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%