The Surgeon's Experience with Head-Mounted Augmented Reality in Orthopedic Trauma Surgery

Master thesis (2022)

Authors

L.G. Knöps Mechanical Engineering

Contributors

M. van der Elst Support Biomechanical Engineering (supervisor 1)
Mark van Vledder Erasmus MC (supervisor 1)
Bart Cornelissen Erasmus MC (supervisor 2)
Faculty
Mechanical Engineering
Copyright: © 2022 Lucy Knöps
More Info
expand_more

Published Date

15-11-2022

Language

English

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Faculty

Mechanical Engineering

Abstract

Background
Head-mounted augmented reality (AR) can be beneficial in orthopedic trauma surgery by projecting 3-dimensional (3D) holograms of preoperative imaging data, drilling or cutting planes, and osteosynthesis material, directly onto the surgeon’s field of view (FOV). For successful implementation of head-mounted AR in orthopedic trauma surgery, the surgeon’s experience is of utmost importance. This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the surgeon’s experience with head-mounted AR in orthopedic trauma surgery.
Methods
The Microsoft HoloLens 2 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) was used to project patient-specific 3D models of the patient’s fracture site as 3D holograms in the surgeon’s FOV during surgery of intra-articular fractures. The surgeon’s experience was recorded using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, Borg CR10 Scale, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index, System Usability Scale, and a custom-made questionnaire.
Results
A total of 14 ORIF surgeries were performed while using a head-mounted AR device. Overall, surgeons were satisfied with AR HMDs (67.9 ± 22.3 (mean ± SD)) and wanted to use it again (70.0 ± 22.54 (mean ± SD)). Good results were reported regarding the usability of the AR HMD (65.7 ± 16.6 (mean ± SD)) and the interaction with 3D holograms 72.1 ± 15.8 (mean ± SD). However, the mental demand, size, and weight of the AR HMD were rated less favorable.
Conclusion
The surgeon’s experience with the intraoperative use of head-mounted AR in orthopedic trauma surgery is sufficient and head-mounted AR has great future potential in orthopedic trauma surgery. Future research has to focus on an ergonomic design of surgical AR HMDs, technological developments, a simple and fluent workflow, and proving clinical value of head-mounted AR.