Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility and safety of augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using smartglass

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the feasibility, safety and usefulness of augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using smartglass (SG).

Methods

Seven urological surgeons (3 board urologists and 4 urology residents) performed augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using SG for 10 different types of operations and a total of 31 urological operations. Feasibility was assessed using technical metadata (number of photographs taken/number of videos recorded/video time recorded) and structured interviews with the urologists on their use of SG. Safety was evaluated by recording complications and grading according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Usefulness of SG for urological surgery was queried in structured interviews and in a survey.

Results

The implementation of SG use during urological surgery was feasible with no intrinsic (technical defect) or extrinsic (inability to control the SG function) obstacles being observed. SG use was safe as no grade 3–5 complications occurred for the series of 31 urological surgeries of different complexities. Technical applications of SG included taking photographs/recording videos for teaching and documentation, hands-free teleconsultation, reviewing patients’ medical records and images and searching the internet for health information. Overall usefulness of SG for urological surgery was rated as very high by 43 % and high by 29 % of surgeons.

Conclusions

Augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using SG is both feasible and safe and also provides several useful functions for urological surgeons. Further developments and investigations are required in the near future to harvest the great potential of this exciting technology for urological surgery.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Slade Shantz JA, Veillette CJ (2014) The application of wearable technology in surgery: ensuring the positive impact of the wearable revolution on surgical patients. Front Surg 1:39. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2014.00039

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Forbes (2013) Inside the operating room with Google Glass. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnosta/2013/06/21/google-glass-in-the-operating-room/-7cf318605d61. Accessed 28 May 2016

  3. Rahimy E, Garg SJ (2015) Google Glass for recording scleral buckling surgery. JAMA Ophthalmol 133(6):710–711. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.0465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brewer ZE, Fann HC, Ogden WD, Burdon TA, Sheikh AY (2016) Inheriting the learner’s view: a Google Glass-based wearable computing platform for improving surgical trainee performance. J Surg Educ. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.02.005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Datta N, MacQueen IT, Schroeder AD, Wilson JJ, Espinoza JC, Wagner JP, Filipi CJ, Chen DC (2015) Wearable technology for global surgical teleproctoring. J Surg Educ 72(6):1290–1295. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.07.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kantor J (2014) First look: Google Glass in dermatology, Mohs surgery, and surgical reconstruction. JAMA Dermatol 150(11):1191. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Armstrong DG, Rankin TM, Giovinco NA, Mills JL, Matsuoka Y (2014) A heads-up display for diabetic limb salvage surgery: a view through the google looking glass. J Diabetes Sci Technol 8(5):951–956. doi:10.1177/1932296814535561

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Muensterer OJ, Lacher M, Zoeller C, Bronstein M, Kubler J (2014) Google Glass in pediatric surgery: an exploratory study. Int J Surg 12(4):281–289. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis CR, Rosenfield LK (2015) Looking at plastic surgery through Google Glass: part 1. Systematic review of Google Glass evidence and the first plastic surgical procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(3):918–928. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001056

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dickey RM, Srikishen N, Lipshultz LI, Spiess PE, Carrion RE, Hakky TS (2015) Augmented reality assisted surgery: a urologic training tool. Asian J Androl. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.166436

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yu J, Ferniany W, Guthrie B, Parekh SG, Ponce B (2016) Lessons learned from Google Glass: telemedical spark or unfulfilled promise? Surg Innov 23(2):156–165. doi:10.1177/1553350615597085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Likert T (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22(140):55

    Google Scholar 

  14. Drake-Brockman TF, Datta A, von Ungern-Sternberg BS (2016) Patient monitoring with Google Glass: a pilot study of a novel monitoring technology. Paediatr Anaesth 26(5):539–546. doi:10.1111/pan.12879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liebert CA, Zayed MA, Aalami O, Tran J, Lau JN (2016) Novel use of Google Glass for procedural wireless vital sign monitoring. Surg Innov. doi:10.1177/1553350616630142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Evans HL, O’Shea DJ, Morris AE, Keys KA, Wright AS, Schaad DC, Ilgen JS (2016) A comparison of Google Glass and traditional video vantage points for bedside procedural skill assessment. Am J Surg 211(2):336–342. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.07.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baldwin AC, Mallidi HR, Baldwin JC, Sandoval E, Cohn WE, Frazier OH, Singh SK (2016) Through the looking glass: real-time video using ‘Smart’ technology provides enhanced intraoperative logistics. World J Surg 40(1):242–244. doi:10.1007/s00268-015-3235-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chai PR, Babu KM, Boyer EW (2015) The feasibility and acceptability of Google Glass for teletoxicology consults. J Med Toxicol 11(3):283–287. doi:10.1007/s13181-015-0495-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Chimenti PC, Mitten DJ (2015) Google Glass as an alternative to standard fluoroscopic visualization for percutaneous fixation of hand fractures: a pilot study. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(2):328–330. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chai PR, Wu RY, Ranney ML, Bird J, Chai S, Zink B, Porter PS (2015) Feasibility and acceptability of Google Glass for emergency department dermatology consultations. JAMA Dermatol 151(7):794–796. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.0248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Russell PM, Mallin M, Youngquist ST, Cotton J, Aboul-Hosn N, Dawson M (2014) First “glass” education: telementored cardiac ultrasonography using Google Glass- a pilot study. Acad Emerg Med 21(11):1297–1299. doi:10.1111/acem.12504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Albrecht UV, von Jan U, Kuebler J, Zoeller C, Lacher M, Muensterer OJ, Ettinger M, Klintschar M, Hagemeier L (2014) Google Glass for documentation of medical findings: evaluation in forensic medicine. J Med Internet Res 16(2):e53. doi:10.2196/jmir.3225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Young KL, Stephens AN, Stephan KL, Stuart GW (2016) In the eye of the beholder: a simulator study of the impact of Google Glass on driving performance. Accid Anal Prev 86:68–75. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jeroudi OM, Christakopoulos G, Christopoulos G, Kotsia A, Kypreos MA, Rangan BV, Banerjee S, Brilakis ES (2015) Accuracy of remote electrocardiogram interpretation with the use of Google Glass technology. Am J Cardiol 115(3):374–377. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.11.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all healthcare professionals involved in performing this feasibility study on the smartglass technology.

Authors’ contribution

H Borgmann and M Socarras were involved in project development, data management, data analysis and manuscript writing. J Salem analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. I Tsaur and E Barret analysed the data and edited the manuscript. J Gomez Rivas was involved in project development, data analysis and manuscript editing. L Tortolero was involved in project development, data management, data analysis and manuscript editing.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany

      H. Borgmann & I. Tsaur

    2. Department of Urology, Alvaro Cunqueiro University Hospital, Vigo, Spain

      M. Rodríguez Socarrás & L. Tortolero

    3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany

      J. Salem

    4. Department of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain

      J. Gomez Rivas

    5. Department of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, Paris, France

      E. Barret

    Authors
    1. H. Borgmann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. M. Rodríguez Socarrás
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. J. Salem
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. I. Tsaur
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. J. Gomez Rivas
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. E. Barret
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. L. Tortolero
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to H. Borgmann.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

    Ethical standard

    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 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained for all 31 patients undergoing augmented reality-assisted urological surgery.

    Additional information

    H. Borgmann and M. Rodríguez Socarrás have contributed equally.

    Electronic supplementary material

    Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

    Supplementary material 1 (PDF 67 kb)

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Borgmann, H., Rodríguez Socarrás, M., Salem, J. et al. Feasibility and safety of augmented reality-assisted urological surgery using smartglass. World J Urol 35, 967–972 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1956-6

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1956-6

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation