Treffer: Touchless Control of Picture Archiving and Communication System in Operating Room Environment: A Comparative Study of Input Methods.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 May-Jun;15(3):321-3. (PMID: 18451034)
Imaging Sci Dent. 2014 Jun;44(2):155-60. (PMID: 24944966)
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013 Nov;8(6):997-1002. (PMID: 23580026)
Int J Exerc Sci. 2015 Jul 1;8(3):297-302. (PMID: 27182418)
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 15;11(4):e0153596. (PMID: 27082758)
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2016 Jun;11(6):853-61. (PMID: 26984551)
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017 Feb;12(2):291-305. (PMID: 27647327)
Sensors (Basel). 2013 May 14;13(5):6380-93. (PMID: 23673678)
Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2017 Jul 01;14(Summer):1c. (PMID: 28855856)
Surg Innov. 2015 Dec;22(6):615-20. (PMID: 26002115)
Surg Innov. 2012 Sep;19(3):301-7. (PMID: 22064490)
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2016 Jan;11(1):157-64. (PMID: 25958060)
Surg Innov. 2014 Dec;21(6):655-6. (PMID: 24742500)
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003 Apr;24(4):302-3. (PMID: 12725363)
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Apr;149(4):567-78. (PMID: 27021461)
Weitere Informationen
Background: The advancement of computer information technology would maximize its potential in operating rooms with touchless input devices. A picture archiving and communication system (PACS) was compared with a touchless input device (LMC-GW), relaying to another person to control a mouse through verbal guidance, and directly controlling a mouse.
Methods: Participants (n = 34; mean age, 29.6 years) were prospectively enrolled and given nine scenarios to compare the three methods. Each scenario consisted of eight tasks, which required 6 essential functions of PACS. Time elapsed and measurement values were recorded for objective evaluation, while subjective evaluation was conducted with a questionnaire.
Results: In all 8 tasks, manipulation using the mouse took significantly less time than the other methods (all p < 0.05). Study selection, panning, zooming, scrolling, distance measuring, and leg length measurement took significantly less time when LMC-GW was used compared to relaying to another person (all p < 0.01), whereas there were no significant differences in time required for measuring the angles and windowing. Although the touchless input device provided higher accessibility and lower contamination risk, it was more difficult to handle than the other input methods (all p < 0.01).
Conclusions: The touchless input device provided superior or equal performance to the method of verbal instruction in the environment of operating room. Surgeons agreed that the device would be helpful for manipulating PACS in operating rooms with less contamination risk and disturbance of workflow. The touchless input device can be an alternative option for direct manipulation of a mouse in operation rooms in the future.
(Copyright © 2021 by The Korean Orthopaedic Association.)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.