Experimental Assessment of a Novel Touchless Interface for Intraprocedural Imaging Review

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the feasibility of a novel technology platform that enables real-time touchless interaction with radiology images in both a simulated and an actual clinical setting.

Materials and Methods

This platform offers three different modes for image interaction. The gesture recognition mode uses a depth camera to detect the user’s hand gestures which are translated to image manipulation commands. The light projection mode uses the same camera to detect finger point-and-tap movements above the icons which are projected on a surface to activate the commands. The capacitive sensing mode is enabled by a handheld, portable device, over which finger movements are detected by capacitive sensors to control the image review. Following initial feedback, light projection and capacitive sensing modes were selected for further testing by comparing with the conventional mode of image interaction in time trials for performing a series of standardized image manipulation tasks. Finally, the usability of the technology platform was examined in actual clinical procedures.

Results

The light projection and the capacitive sensing modes were evaluated in the time trials and exhibited 60% and 71% reduction in time, respectively, relative to the control mode (p < 0.001). Clinical feasibility for this platform was demonstrated in three actual interventional radiology cases.

Conclusion

Accessing, navigating, and extracting relevant information from patient images intraprocedurally are cumbersome and time-consuming tasks that affect safety, efficiency, and decision-making during image-guided procedures. This study demonstrated that the novel technology addressed this issue by allowing touchless interaction with these images in the sterile field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Ratib O. Imaging informatics: from image management to image navigation. Yearb Med Inform. 2009;18(01):167–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mewes A, Hensen B, Wacker F, et al. Touchless interaction with software in interventional radiology and surgery. A systematic literature review. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017;12(2):291–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Iannessi A, Marcy P-Y, Clatz O, et al. Touchless intra-operative display for interventional radiologist. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95(3):333–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rosset A, Spadola L, Pysher L, et al. Informatics in radiology (infoRAD). Navigating the fifth dimension: innovative interface for multidimensional multimodality image navigation. Radiographics. 2006;26(1):299–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Grätzel C, Fong T, Grange S, et al. A non-contact mouse for surgeon-computer interaction. Technol Health Care. 2004;12(3):245–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, et al. Communication failures in the operating room. An observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(5):330–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Firth-Cozens J. Why communication fails in the operating room. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(5):327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Johnson R, O’Hara K, Sellen A, et al. Exploring the potential for touchless interaction. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI; 2011. p. 3323–3332.

  9. 9.

    O’Hara K, Gonzales G, Sellen A, et al. Touchless interaction in surgery. Commun ACM. 2014;57(1):71–7.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hettig J, Saalfeld P, Luz M, Becker M, Skalej M, Hansen C. Comparison of gesture and conventional interaction techniques for interventional neuroradiology. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017;12(9):1643–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Strickland M, Tremaine J, Brigley G, et al. Using a depth-sensing infrared camera system to access and manipulate medical imaging from within the sterile operating field. Can J Surg. 2013;56(3):E1–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Tan JH, Chao C, Zawaideh M, et al. Informatics in radiology. Developing a touchless user interface for intraoperative image control during interventional radiology procedures. Radiographics. 2013;33(2):E61–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bizzotto N, Costanzo A, Bizzotto L, et al. Leap motion gesture control with OsiriX in the operating room to control imaging. First experiences during live surgery. Surg Innov. 2014;21(6):655–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Weichert F, Bachmann D, Rudak B, et al. Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the leap motion controller. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 2013;13(5):6380–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sánchez-Margallo FM, Sánchez-Margallo JA, et al. Use of natural user interfaces for image navigation during laparoscopic surgery: initial experience. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2017;26(5):253–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Guna J, Jakus G, et al. An analysis of the precision and reliability of the leap motion sensor and its suitability for static and dynamic tracking. Sensors. 2014;14(2):3702–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Rosa GM, Elizondo ML. Use of a gesture user interface as a touchless image navigation system in dental surgery: case series report. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44(2):150–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    TIPSO Beam: https://nztech.ca/tipso-beam/. Accessed 2 Jan 2019.

  19. 19.

    TIPSO AirPad: https://nztech.ca/tipso-airpad/. Accessed 2 Jan 2019.

  20. 20.

    Punt MM, Stefels CN, Grimbergen CA, Dankelman J. Evaluation of voice control, touch panel control and assistant control during steering of an endoscope. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2005;14(3):181–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JC and DML are advisors of NZ Technologies Inc.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Chung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JC and DML are advisors of NZ Technologies Inc.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Consent for publication was obtained for every individual person’s data included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chung, J., Liu, D.M. Experimental Assessment of a Novel Touchless Interface for Intraprocedural Imaging Review. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 42, 1192–1198 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02207-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Touchless image navigation
  • Human–computer interaction
  • PACS
  • Interventional radiology