Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 29, Issue 9, pp 2705–2719 | Cite as

Spatial orientation in pathway surgery

  • Chunman FanEmail author
  • Dimitra Dodou
  • Paul Breedveld
  • Jenny Dankelman
Article

Abstract

Background

In the field of minimally invasive surgery, specifically in pathway surgery (i.e. minimal invasive procedures carried out transluminally or through instrument-created pathways), spatial disorientation is a common experience to endoscopists. In this article, two effects that may cause spatial disorientation in pathway surgery, ‘control-display compatibility’ and ‘local disorientation’, were studied.

Method

A custom-developed simulator Endo-PaC was developed and used for mimicking pathway surgical scenarios. In Study 1, two ways of control-display alignment, normal mapping and mirrored mapping, were tested in combination with two control devices, thumb control and wrist control, in an orienting task using Endo-PaC. In Study 2, a tethered viewpoint was added to the virtual instrument tip. It was hypothesized that the visible tip would provide a cue of orientating direction in the reference frame during the instrument navigation. In both studies, novice participants were involved, and their performance was evaluated with regard to task time, path length travelled by the virtual tip, time and number of warnings, and subjective workload and personal preference.

Results

In Study 1, normal-thumb and normal-wrist mapping yielded significantly lower means than mirrored-thumb and mirrored-wrist control for all investigated objective and subjective performance measurements. Out of 24 participants, 20 participants preferred normal control mapping. In Study 2, participants performed the task in shorter time and with shorter path length when the tip was visible tip on the monitor using a tethered viewpoint, but with a lower number and time of warnings without a visible tip.

Conclusion

The results of our studies show that eliminating the visual-display misalignment would greatly improve novice participants’ performance, reduce the training time and their cognitive workload. A visible tip on the monitor would provide strong direction cue and shorten the performance time, but might introduce collision errors to novices and therefore requires longer training time.

Keywords

Instruments Steerable instrument Spatial orientation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research was funded by the Marie Curie Initial Training Network project IIIOS (Integrated Interventional Imaging Operation System, Project 238802) and carried out at the department BioMechanical Engineering of Delft University of Technology. The authors want to thank all the participants as well as Filip Jelinek and David Jager for designing and manufacturing the Endo-PaC.

Disclosures

The authors Chunman Fan, Dimitra Dodou, Paul Breedveld and Jenny Dankelman have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Rattner D, Kalloo A (2006) ASGE/SAGES ASGE/SAGES working group on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 20(2):329–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shahinian HK, Kabil MS, Jarrahy R (2008) Endoscopic skull base surgery: a comprehensive guide with illustrative cases. Humana Press, TotowaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cao CG, Milgram P (2000) Disorientation in minimal access surgery: a case study. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, pp 169–172Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Worringham CJ, Beringer DB (1989) Operator orientation and compatibility in visual-motor task performance. Ergonomics 32(4):387–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan WH, Chan AHS (2007) Strength and reversibility of movement stereotypes for lever control and circular display. Int J Ind Ergon 37(3):233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hollands JG, Wickens CD (1999) Engineering psychology and human performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith RL, Stuart MA (1989) The effects of spatially displaced visual feedback on remote manipulator performance. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, pp 1430–1434Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks TL, Ince I (1992) Operator vision aids for telerobotic assembly and servicing in space. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 886–891Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray SV, Wilson JR, Syan CS (1992) Human control of robot motion: orientation, perception and compatibility. In: Human-robot interaction. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 48–64Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Macedo JA, Kaber DB, Endsley MR, Powanusorn P, Myung S (1998) The effect of automated compensation for incongruent axes on teleoperator performance. J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 40:541–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKee GT, Schenker PS (1993) Nonanthropomorphic viewing for teleoperation. In: Optical tools for manufacturing and advanced automation. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 282–291Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, Ritchie K, Sheehy NP (1998) An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy 30:617–620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hills JW, Green PS, Jensen JF, Gorfu Y, Shah AS (1994) Telepresence surgery demonstration system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 2302–2307Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fan C, Dodou D, Breedveld P (2012) Review of manual control methods for handheld manoeuvrable instruments. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 22:127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Hum Ment Workload 1:139–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Winter JCF (2014) Controversy in human factors constructs and the explosive use of the NASA TLX: a measurement perspective. Cogn Technol Work 16:289–297Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Breedveld P (2010) Steerable laparoscopic cable-ring forceps. J Med Devices 4(2):027518-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wickens CD, Vincow M, Yeh M (2005) Design application of visual spatial thinking: the importance of frame of reference. In: Shah P, Miyake A (eds) The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking, Cambridge University Press, pp 383–425Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winckens CD, Hollands JG, Parasuraman R, Banbury S (2012) Engineering psychology and human performance, 4th edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCormick EP, Wickens CD, Banks R, Yeh M (1998) Frame of reference effects on scientific visualization subtasks. J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 40(3):443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang W, Milgram P (2001) Dynamic viewpoint tethering for navigation in large-scale virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, pp 1862–1866Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang W, Milgram P (2003) Effects of viewpoint displacement on navigational performance in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, pp 139–143Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Golledge RG (1999) Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In: Golledge RG (ed) Wayfinding behaviour: cognitive mapping and other spatial processes, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp 5–45Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cotton PB, Williams CB (2008) Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy: the fundamentals. Wiley, BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cirocco WC, Rusin LC (1996) Fluoroscopy, a valuable ally during difficult colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 10(11):1080–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cao CGL (2001) Designing for spatial orientation in endoscopic environments. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE Publications, pp 1259–1263Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marvik RM, Langø T, Tangen GA, Andersen JO, Kaspersen JH, Ystgaard B et al (2004) Laparoscopic navigation pointer for three-dimensional image-guided surgery. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 18(8):1242–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saunders BP, Bell GD, Williams CB, Bladen JS, Anderson AP (1995) First clinical results with a real time, electronic imager as an aid to colonoscopy. Gut 36(6):913–917PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor HA, Brunye TT, Taylor ST (2008) Spatial mental representation: implications for navigation system design. Rev Hum Factors Ergon 4(1):1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haluck RS, Webster RW, Snyder AJ, Melkonian MG, Mohler BJ, Dise ML, Lefever A (2003) A virtual reality surgical trainer for navigation in laparoscopic surgery. Med Meets Virtual Real 105(2):119–131Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carrozza MC, Arena A, Accoto D, Menciassi A, Dario P (2003) A SMA-actuated miniature pressure regulator for a miniature robot for colonoscopy. Sens Actuators A 105(2):119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ng WS, Phee S, Seow C, Davies BL (2000) Development of a robotic colonoscope. Dig Endosc 12(2):131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zazzarini CC, Pansini A, Cerveri P, Zaltieri R, Lavizzari D (2011) Design of a robotic endoscope for mini invasive surgery. In: ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 771–777Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Inoue H, Okabe S, Takeshita K, Muraoka Y, Yoneshima H, Endo M (1993) Colonoscopy using a transparent plastic cap. Gastroenterol Endosc 35:378–381Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tsumura T, Torii A, Fujita S, Takeda J, Hikita H, Nishikawa H, Ochi J, Miura K (2003) Usefulness of oblique transparent cylinders in facilitating colonoscopy. Dig Endosc 15(2):121–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dafnis GM (2000) Technical considerations and patient comfort in total colonoscopy with and without a transparent cap: initial experiences from a pilot study. Endoscopy 32(5):381–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kondo S, Yamaji Y, Watabe H, Yamada A, Sugimoto T, Ohta M et al (2007) A randomized controlled trial evaluating the usefulness of a transparent hood attached to the tip of the colonoscope. Am J Gastroenterol 102(1):75–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yap CK, Ng HS (2001) Cap-fitted gastroscopy improves visualization and targeting of lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 53(1):93–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Urita Y, Nishino M, Ariki H, Ozaki M, Naruki Y, Otsuka S (1997) A transparent hood simplifies magnifying observation of the colonic mucosa by colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 46(2):170–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee YT, Hui AJ, Wong VWS, Hung LCT, Sung JJY (2006) Improved colonoscopy success rate with a distally attached mucosectomy cap. Endoscopy 38(7):739–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tada M, Inoue H, Yabata E, Okabe S, Endo M (1997) Feasibility of the transparent cap-fitted colonoscope for screening and mucosal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 40(5):618–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Matsushita M, Hajiro K, Okazaki K, Takakuwa H, Tominaga M (1998) Efficacy of total colonoscopy with a transparent cap in comparison with colonoscopy without the cap. Endoscopy 30(5):444–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harada Y, Hirasawa D, Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G, Kazuhiko I, Yonechi M et al (2009) Impact of a transparent hood on the performance of total colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 69(3):637–644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunman Fan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dimitra Dodou
    • 1
  • Paul Breedveld
    • 1
  • Jenny Dankelman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations