Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\29510969
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 JMIR+Mhealth+Uhealth
2018 ; 6
(3
): e54
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Using Google Glass in Surgical Settings: Systematic Review
#MMPMID29510969
Wei NJ
; Dougherty B
; Myers A
; Badawy SM
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
2018[Mar]; 6
(3
): e54
PMID29510969
show ga
BACKGROUND: In recent years, wearable devices have become increasingly attractive
and the health care industry has been especially drawn to Google Glass because of
its ability to serve as a head-mounted wearable device. The use of Google Glass
in surgical settings is of particular interest due to the hands-free device
potential to streamline workflow and maintain sterile conditions in an operating
room environment. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to conduct a systematic evaluation of the
literature on the feasibility and acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical
settings and to assess the potential benefits and limitations of its application.
METHODS: The literature was searched for articles published between January 2013
and May 2017. The search included the following databases: PubMed MEDLINE,
Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO
(EBSCO), and IEEE Xplore. Two reviewers independently screened titles and
abstracts and assessed full-text articles. Original research articles that
evaluated the feasibility, usability, or acceptability of using Google Glass in
surgical settings were included. This review was completed following the
Preferred Reporting Results of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
RESULTS: Of the 520 records obtained, 31 met all predefined criteria and were
included in this review. Google Glass was used in various surgical specialties.
Most studies were in the United States (23/31, 74%) and all were conducted in
hospital settings: 29 in adult hospitals (29/31, 94%) and two in children's
hospitals (2/31, 7%). Sample sizes of participants who wore Google Glass ranged
from 1 to 40. Of the 31 studies, 25 (81%) were conducted under real-time
conditions or actual clinical care settings, whereas the other six (19%) were
conducted under simulated environment. Twenty-six studies were pilot or
feasibility studies (84%), three were case studies (10%), and two were randomized
controlled trials (6%). The majority of studies examined the potential use of
Google Glass as an intraoperative intervention (27/31, 87%), whereas others
observed its potential use in preoperative (4/31, 13%) and postoperative settings
(5/31, 16%). Google Glass was utilized as a videography and photography device
(21/31, 68%), a vital sign monitor (6/31, 19%), a surgical navigation display
(5/31, 16%), and as a videoconferencing tool to communicate with remote surgeons
intraoperatively (5/31, 16%). Most studies reported moderate or high
acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings. The main reported
limitations of using Google Glass utilization were short battery life (8/31, 26%)
and difficulty with hands-free features (5/31, 16%). CONCLUSIONS: There are
promising feasibility and usability data of using Google Glass in surgical
settings with particular benefits for surgical education and training. Despite
existing technical limitations, Google Glass was generally well received and
several studies in surgical settings acknowledged its potential for training,
consultation, patient monitoring, and audiovisual recording.
free
free
free
