Effectiveness of the HoloLens mixed-reality headset in minimally invasive surgery: a simulation-based feasibility study

Hasaneen Fathy Al Janabi, Abdullatif Aydin, Sharanya Palaneer, Nicola Macchione, Ahmed Al-Jabir, Muhammad Shamim Khan, Prokar Dasgupta, Kamran Ahmed, Hasaneen Fathy Al Janabi, Abdullatif Aydin, Sharanya Palaneer, Nicola Macchione, Ahmed Al-Jabir, Muhammad Shamim Khan, Prokar Dasgupta, Kamran Ahmed

Abstract

Background: The advent of Virtual Reality technologies presents new opportunities for enhancing current surgical practice. Studies suggest that current techniques in endoscopic surgery are prone to disturbance of a surgeon's visual-motor axis, influencing performance, ergonomics and iatrogenic injury rates. The Microsoft® HoloLens is a novel head-mounted display that has not been explored within surgical innovation research. This study aims to evaluate the HoloLens as a potential alternative to conventional monitors in endoscopic surgery.

Materials and methods: This prospective, observational and comparative study recruited 72 participants consisting of novices (n = 28), intermediate-level (n = 24) and experts (n = 20). Participants performed ureteroscopy, within an inflatable operating environment, using a validated training model and the HoloLens mixed-reality device as a monitor. Novices also completed the assigned task using conventional monitors; whilst the experienced groups did not, due to their extensive familiarity. Outcome measures were procedural completion time and performance evaluation (OSATS) score. A final evaluation survey was distributed amongst all participants.

Results: The HoloLens facilitated improved outcomes for procedural times (absolute difference, - 73 s; 95% CI - 115 to - 30; P = 0.0011) and OSAT scores (absolute difference, 4.1 points; 95% CI 2.9-5.3; P < 0.0001) compared to conventional monitors. Feedback evaluation demonstrated 97% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the HoloLens will have a role in surgical education (mean rating, 4.6 of 5; 95% CI 4.5-4.8). Furthermore, 95% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the HoloLens is feasible to introduce clinically and will have a role within surgery (mean rating, 4.4 of 5; 95% CI 4.2-4.5).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the device facilitated improved outcomes of performance in novices and was widely accepted as a surgical visual aid by all groups. The HoloLens represents a feasible alternative to the conventional setup, possibly by aligning the surgeon's visual-motor axis.

Keywords: Augmented reality; Endoscopy; Head-mounted displays; HoloLens; Surgery; Virtual reality.

Conflict of interest statement

Prokar Dasgupta acknowledges his position as a trustee of the Malcolm Coptcoat Trust and Chief Scientific Officer at Proximie. This research project was conducted at the Kings College, London with no influence on the methodology and outcomes from the funding organisation. The authors, Hasaneen Fathy Al Janabi, Ahmed Al-Jabir, Abdullatif Aydin, Sharanya Palaneer, Nicola Macchione, Muhammad Shamim Khan, and Kamran Ahmed have no conflicts of interest to declare. The views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the acknowledged organisations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Participants utilising the HoloLens to perform ureteroscopy within a Full Immersion Simulation environment. Image A: the view of the user to an outside when the HoloLens is worn, and B: a simulated view of what the operator wearing the HoloLens sees
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Performance-related outcomes: procedural times (left) and OSATS (right)

References

    1. Milgram P, Kishino F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst. 1994;77(12):1321–1329.
    1. El Shallaly G, Cuschieri A. Optimum view distance for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc Other Interv Techn. 2006;20(12):1879–1882. doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0162-1.
    1. Iqbal MH, et al. A review of wearable technology in medicine. J R Soc Med. 2016;109(10):372–380. doi: 10.1177/0141076816663560.
    1. Iqbal MH, et al. The effectiveness of Google GLASS as a vital signs monitor in surgery: A simulation study. Int J Surg. 2016;36:293–297. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.013.
    1. Kihara K, et al. New three-dimensional head-mounted display system, TMDU-S-3D system, for minimally invasive surgery application: Procedures for gasless single-port radical nephrectomy. Int J Urol. 2012;19(9):886–889. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03044.x.
    1. Koesveld JJM, Tetteroo GWM, Graaf EJR. Use of head-mounted display in transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Endosc Other Interv Techn. 2003;17(6):943–946. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-9067-4.
    1. Levy ML, et al. Stereoscopic head-mounted display incorporated into microsurgical procedures: technical note. Neurosurgery. 1998;43(2):392–395. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199808000-00141.
    1. Maithel SK, et al. Simulated laparoscopy using a head-mounted display vs traditional video monitor: an assessment of performance and muscle fatigue. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(3):406–411. doi: 10.1007/s00464-004-8177-6.
    1. Prendergast CJ, et al. Surgical performance with head-mounted displays in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2009;19(s1):s237–s240. doi: 10.1089/lap.2008.0142.supp.
    1. Schier F, Beyerlein S, Gauderer M. Imaging for endoscopic surgery: new developments applicable to pediatric surgical interventions. Pediatr Surg Int. 2002;18(5):459–462.
    1. Yoshida S, et al. Head-mounted display for a personal integrated image monitoring system: ureteral stent placement. Urol Int. 2015;94(1):117–120. doi: 10.1159/000356987.
    1. Aydin A, et al. Current status of simulation and training models in urological surgery: a systematic review. J Urol. 2016;196(2):312–320. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.131.
    1. Kneebone R, et al. Distributed simulation—accessible immersive training. Med Teach. 2010;32(1):65–70. doi: 10.3109/01421590903419749.
    1. Brunckhorst O, et al. Simulation-based ureteroscopy skills training curriculum with integration of technical and non-technical skills: A randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2728–2735. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3996-6.
    1. van Det MJ, et al. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1279–1285. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0148-x.
    1. Wauben LSGL, et al. Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc Other Interv Techn. 2006;20(8):1268–1274. doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0647-y.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa