Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 372–378 | Cite as

A blinded assessment of video quality in wearable technology for telementoring in open surgery: the Google Glass experience

  • Daniel A. Hashimoto
  • Roy Phitayakorn
  • Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo
  • Ozanan Meireles
New Technology

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.

Keywords

Telementoring Surgical education Wearable technology Open surgery 

Notes

Disclosures

Daniel A. Hashimoto, Roy Phitayakorn, Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo, and Ozanan Meireles have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Sebajang H, Trudeau P, Dougall A, Hegge S, McKinley C, Anvari M (2005) Telementoring: an important enabling tool for the community surgeon. Surg Innov 12:327–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anvari M (2007) Telesurgery: remote knowledge translation in clinical surgery. World J Surg 31:1545–1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosser JC Jr, Young SM, Klonsky J (2007) Telementoring: an application whose time has come. Surg Endosc 21:1458–1463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schulam PG, Docimo SG, Saleh W, Breitenbach C, Moore RG, Kavoussi L (1997) Telesurgical mentoring. Initial clinical experience. Surg Endosc 11:1001–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rafiq A, Moore JA, Zhao X, Doarn CR, Merrell RC (2004) Digital video capture and synchronous consultation in open surgery. Ann Surg 239:567–573PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Franzen J, Bollmann S, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) A comprehensive review of telementoring applications in laparoscopic general surgery. Surg Endosc 26:2111–2116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cubano M, Poulose BK, Talamini MA, Stewart R, Antosek LE, Lentz R, Nibe R, Kutka MF, Mendoza-Sagaon M (1999) Long distance telementoring. A novel tool for laparoscopy aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Surg Endosc 13:673–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Challacombe B, Wheatstone S (2010) Telementoring and telerobotics in urological surgery. Curr Urol Rep 11:22–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Google (2014) Glass. In: Google (ed). https://www.google.com/glass
  10. 10.
    Muensterer OJ, Lacher M, Zoeller C, Bronstein M, Kubler J (2014) Google Glass in pediatric surgery: an exploratory study. Int J Surg 12(4):281–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelen L (2013) Is Google Glass useful in the operating room?. LinkedIn, LinkedIncom, Mountain ViewGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang J (2013) Google Glass assists surgeons and medical students at Ohio State University. ABC, ABC News, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McBeth PB, Hamilton T, Kirkpatrick AW (2010) Cost-effective remote iPhone-teathered telementored trauma telesonography. J Trauma 69:1597–1599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crawford I, McBeth PB, Mitchelson M, Tiruta C, Ferguson J, Kirkpatrick AW (2011) Telementorable “just-in-time” lung ultrasound on an iPhone. J Emerg Trauma Shock 4:526PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    VQEG (2003) Final report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment, phase II. Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meireles OR, Assumpcao LR, Pawlik TM, Choti MA, Belkind N, Apelgren KN, Marohn MR (2011) Assessment and comparison of digital image quality for peritoneoscopy using the flexible endoscope and the rigid laparoscope for NOTES procedures. In: 11th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Yokohama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinson MH, Wolf S (2004) A new standardized method for objectively measuring video quality. IEEE Trans Broadcast 50:312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, Liu K, Lee CM, Whang K, Hunter JG (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 237:460–469PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Choy I, Fecso A, Kwong J, Jackson T, Okrainec A (2013) Remote evaluation of laparoscopic performance using the global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 27:378–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jaschinski W, Heuer H, Kylian H (1998) Preferred position of visual displays relative to the eyes: a field study of visual strain and individual differences. Ergonomics 41:1034–1049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ripple PH (1952) Variation of accommodation in vertical directions of gaze. Am J Ophthalmol 35:1630–1634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taptagaporn S, Saito S (1993) Visual comfort in VDT operation: physiological resting states of the eye. Ind Health 31:13–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Hashimoto
    • 1
  • Roy Phitayakorn
    • 1
  • Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo
    • 1
  • Ozanan Meireles
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations