Clinical and surgical applications of smart glasses

Mitrasinovic, Stefan; Camacho, Elvis; Nirali, Trivedi; Logan, Julia; Campbell, C.; Zilinyi, Robert; Lieber, Bryan; Bruce, Eliza; Taylor, Brittany L.; Martineau, David; Dumont, Emmanuel; Appelboom, Geoff; Connolly, E. Sander

doi:10.3233/thc-150910

Cited by 132 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Devices in this category were diverse, including a see-through HMD for monitoring physiological patient data that enables anaesthesiologists to limit time spent looking away from the patient,70 and HMDs with fluorescence visualisation capability for identifying margins in tumour resection surgery 62 63. Efficiency-enhancing applications were equally broad, encompassing the use of Google Glass to display and facilitate the completion of surgical checklists,3 22 25 29 and the use of HMDs to provide surgeons performing minimally invasive procedures with individual endoscopic displays.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearable technology is an emerging manifestation of consumer electronics that has the potential to revolutionise healthcare. The novel hands-free design and clinically relevant functionalities of various wearable devices hold significant promise for surgery, but the breadth and quality of evidence supporting clinical implementation in the operating room remains unclear. The objective of this article is to provide an objective overview of the available literature regarding the use of wearable technology in surgery, both in clinical and simulated experimental settings. A systematic review examining the use of wearable technology in surgery was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases from inception through 15 January 2016. Three authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles and those that satisfied the defined inclusion criteria were selected for a full-text review. A total of 87 publications were included in this review. These articles predominantly described the use of Google Glass, GoPro or customised head-mounted displays (HMDs) in a wide range of intraoperative clinical settings. The included articles were categorised based on the highlighted areas of clinical impact, with the majority (56) discussing various applications for enhancing intraoperative safety and efficiency. Almost all articles cited technological limitations and privacy concerns as serious barriers to the implementation of wearable technology in the operating room. Evidence in the available literature regarding the use of wearable technology in the operating room shows promise, but high-quality clinical trials are needed to fully understand their clinical impact. Further, it will be essential to address existing technological limitations, develop healthcare-specific applications, and integrate privacy-protecting safeguards before it may be feasible for wearable devices to seamlessly integrate into the operative environment.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, despite its remarked 2012 commercial unveiling, Google Glass never reached its public audience and was discontinued in January 2015. However, there is a growing interest in recent literature toward its use in specialized medical fields [21,22,25,46,47]. We hypothesize that other AR glasses would not drastically change the results that we found with Google Glass, as their small size remains a major limitation to their use in displaying CPR algorithms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Adherence to AHA Guidelines When Adapted for Augmented Reality Glasses for Assisted Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Siebert¹,

Ehrler²,

Gervaix³

et al. 2017

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are nowadays recognized as the world’s most authoritative resuscitation guidelines. Adherence to these guidelines optimizes the management of critically ill patients and increases their chances of survival after cardiac arrest. Despite their availability, suboptimal quality of CPR is still common. Currently, the median hospital survival rate after pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest is 36%, whereas it falls below 10% for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Among emerging information technologies and devices able to support caregivers during resuscitation and increase adherence to AHA guidelines, augmented reality (AR) glasses have not yet been assessed. In order to assess their potential, we adapted AHA Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) guidelines for AR glasses.ObjectiveThe study aimed to determine whether adapting AHA guidelines for AR glasses increased adherence by reducing deviation and time to initiation of critical life-saving maneuvers during pediatric CPR when compared with the use of PALS pocket reference cards.MethodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups of voluntary pediatric residents, comparing AR glasses to PALS pocket reference cards during a simulation-based pediatric cardiac arrest scenario—pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT). The primary outcome was the elapsed time in seconds in each allocation group, from onset of pVT to the first defibrillation attempt. Secondary outcomes were time elapsed to (1) initiation of chest compression, (2) subsequent defibrillation attempts, and (3) administration of drugs, as well as the time intervals between defibrillation attempts and drug doses, shock doses, and number of shocks. All these outcomes were assessed for deviation from AHA guidelines.ResultsTwenty residents were randomized into 2 groups. Time to first defibrillation attempt (mean: 146 s) and adherence to AHA guidelines in terms of time to other critical resuscitation endpoints and drug dose delivery were not improved using AR glasses. However, errors and deviations were significantly reduced in terms of defibrillation doses when compared with the use of the PALS pocket reference cards. In a total of 40 defibrillation attempts, residents not wearing AR glasses used wrong doses in 65% (26/40) of cases, including 21 shock overdoses >100 J, for a cumulative defibrillation dose of 18.7 Joules per kg. These errors were reduced by 53% (21/40, P<.001) and cumulative defibrillation dose by 37% (5.14/14, P=.001) with AR glasses.ConclusionsAR glasses did not decrease time to first defibrillation attempt and other critical resuscitation endpoints when compared with PALS pocket cards. However, they improved adherence and performance among residents in terms of administering the defibrillation doses set by AHA.

show abstract

“…Functionality has appeared to be an effective determining factor for the adoption of ARSGs (Rauschnabel et al, 2015;Basoglu et al, 2017), as these devices have the potential to create increased value in professional lives and personal use (Elder and Vakaloudis, 2015;Mitrasinovic et al, 2015).…”

Section: Research Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Privacy is not as effective as it is discussed. Mitrasinovic et al (2015) Literature review was conducted by using "smart glasses," "healthcare," "evaluation,"…”

Section: Adoption Of Arsgsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: Applications in the medical industry

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the use of augmented reality smart glasses (ARSGs) by physicians and their adoption of these products in the Turkish medical industry. Google Glass was used as a demonstrative example for the introduction of ARSGs. We proposed an exploratory model based on the technology acceptance model by Davis. Exogenous factors in the model were defined by performing semi-structured in-depth interviews, along with the use of an expert panel in addition to the technology adoption literature. The framework was tested by means of a field study, data was collected via an Internet survey, and path analysis was used. The results indicate that there were a number of factors to be considered in order to understand ARSG adoption by physicians. Usefulness was influenced by ease of use, compatibility, ease of reminding, and speech recognition, while ease of use was affected by ease of learning, ease of medical education, external influence, and privacy. Privacy was the only negative factor that reduced the perceived ease of use, and was found to indirectly create a negative attitude. Compatibility emerged as the most significant external factor for usefulness. Developers of ARSGs should pay attention to healthcare-specific requirements for improved utilization and more extensive adoption of ARSGs in healthcare settings. In particular, they should focus on how to increase the compatibility of ARSGs. Further research needs to be conducted to explain the adoption intention of physicians.

show abstract

Clinical and surgical applications of smart glasses

Cited by 132 publications

References 45 publications

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review

Adherence to AHA Guidelines When Adapted for Augmented Reality Glasses for Assisted Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Exploring adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: Applications in the medical industry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About