Technologies and solutions for data display in the operating room

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 165-173

  Bitterman, Noemi ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Alarms; Auditory display; Haptic display; Monitoring; Multimodal display; Suspended imaging; Wearable computers

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY DISPLAY; DATA DISPLAY; HAPTIC DISPLAY; MULTIMODAL DISPLAY; SUSPENDED IMAGING;

ALARM SYSTEMS; DISPLAY DEVICES; MEDICAL IMAGING; PATIENT MONITORING; WEARABLE COMPUTERS;

OPERATING ROOMS;

ACOUSTICS; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DISPLAY SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID CRYSTAL; OPERATING ROOM; OPERATING ROOM PERSONNEL; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; REVIEW; SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORK ENVIRONMENT;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DATA DISPLAY; HUMAN ENGINEERING; MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; OPERATING ROOMS; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 33745960754     PISSN: 13871307     EISSN: 15732614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10877-006-9017-0     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Herron DM, Gagner M, Kenyon TL, Swanstrom LL. The minimally invasive surgical suite enters the 21st century. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 415-422.
2. Gallagher AG, Smith CD. Human factors lessons learned from the Minimally Invasive Surgery revolution (or don't forget the surgeon). Sem Laparososc Surg 2003; 10: 127-139.
3. Feussner H. The operating room of the future: A view from Europe. Sem Laparosc Surg 2003; 10: 149-156.
4. Rattner DW, Park A. Advanced devices for the operating room. Sem Laparosc Surg 2003; 10: 85-89.
5. Satava RM. The operating room of the future: Observations and commentary. Sem Laparoscopic Surg 2003; 10: 99-105.
6. Satava RM. Future trends in the design and application of surgical robots. Sem Laparosc Surg 2004; 11: 129-135.
7. Satava RM. Disruptive vision; a robot is not a machine⋯Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 617-620.
8. Merrell RC, Jarrell BE, Schenkman NS et al. Telemedicine for the operating room of the future. Sem Laparosc Surg 2003; 10: 91-94.
9. Doarn CR. Telemedicine in tomorrow's operating room: A natural fit. Sem Laparosc Surg 2003; 10: 121-126.
10. Berguer R. Ergonomics in the operating room. Amer J Surg 1996; 171: 385-386.
11. Berguer R. The application of ergonomics in the work environment of general surgeons. Rev Environ Health 1997; 12: 99-106.
12. Gaba DM, Howard SK, Small SD. Situation awareness in anesthesiology. Human Factors 1995; 37: 20-31.
13. Cook RI, Woods DD. Adapting to the new technology in the operating room. Human Factors 1996; 38: 593-613.
14. Wickens CD, Hollands JC. Attention in perception and display space. In: Wickens CD, Hollands JG, eds. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. New Jersey: Prentice Hall 2000: 69-118.
15. Cook RI, Woods DD. Implications of automation surprises in aviation for the future of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). J Clin Anesthesia 1996; 8: 29S-37S.
16. Helmreich RL, Schaefer HG. Team performance in the operating room. In: Bogner MS, ed. Human Error in Medicine. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Pub. 1994: 225-253.
17. Boquet G, Bushman JA, Davenport HT. The anaesthetic machine - a study of function and design. Br J Anaesth 1980; 52: 61-66.
18. McDonald JS, Dzwonczyk RR. A time and motion study of the anaesthetist's intraoperative time. Br J Anaesth 1988; 61: 738-742.
19. McDonald JS, Dzwonczyk RR, Gupta B, et al. A second time-study of the anaesthetist's intraoperative period. Br J Anesth 1990; 64: 582-585.
20. Loeb RG. A measure of intraoperative attention to monitor displays. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 337-341.
21. Weinger MB, Herndon OW, Zornow MH, et al. An objective methodology for task analysis and workload assessment in anesthesia providers. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 77-92.
22. Weinger MB, Herndon OW, Gaba DM. The effect of electronic record keeping and transesophageal echocardiography on task distribution, workload, and vigilance during cardiac anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1997; 87; 144-155.
23. Seaguell FJ, Sanderson PM. Anesthesia alarms in context: An observational study. Human Factors 2001; 43: 66-78.
24. Weinger MT, Englund CE. Ergonomic and human factors affecting anesthetic vigilance and monitoring performance in the operating room environment. Anesthesiology 1990; 73: 995-1021.
25. Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A. Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Ann Surg 1998; 227: 481-484.
26. Wentink M, Jakimowicz JJ, Vos LM et al. Quantitative evaluation of three advanced laparoscopic viewing technologies: A stereo endoscope, an image projection display, and a TFT display. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 1237-1241.
27. Zhang Y, Drews FA, Westenskow DR et al. Effects of integrated graphical displays on situation awareness in anesthesiology. Cognition Technol & Work 2002; 4: 82-90.
28. Westhorpe RN. Ergonomics and monitoring. Anaesth & Intensive Care 1988; 16: 71-75.
29. Austin JW. Evaluation of a "Head up" display for cardiopulmonary bypass. J Extra-Corp Technol 2000; 32: 49-53.
30. Gurushanthaiah K, Weinger MB, Englund CE. Visual display format affects the ability of anesthesiologists to detect acute physiologic changes. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: 1184-1193.
31. Blike GT, Surgenor SD, Whalen K. A graphical object display improves anesthesiologists' performance on a simulated diagnostic task. J Clin Monitor Comput 1999; 15: 37-44.
32. Michels P, Gravenstein D, Westenskow DR. An integrated graphic data display improves detection and identification of critical events during anesthesia. J Clin Monitoring 1997; 13: 249-259.
33. Brown SI, Frank TG, Cuschieri A et al. Optimization of the projection screen in a display system for minimal access surgery. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 1251-1255.
34. Seales WB, Caban J. Visualization trends: Applications in the operating room. Sem Laparoscopic Surg 2003; 10: 107-114.
35. Cuschieri A. Visual display technology for endoscopic surgery. Min. Inves. Ther & Allied Technol 1996; 5: 427-434.
36. Srinivasan R. Effect of selected in-vehicle route guidance systems on driver reaction times. Human Factors 1997; 39: 200-215.
37. Tufano DR. Automotive HUDs: The overlooked safety issues. Human Factors 1997; 39: 303-311.
38. The Laser Cube. Available at: http://www.laser-magic.com/lasercube.html. Accessed March 22, 2005.
39. Barfield W, Caudell T. Fundamentals of wearable computers and augmented reality. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2001.
40. De Rossi D, ed. New Generation of Wearable Systems for eHealth: Towards A Revolution of Citizens' Health and Life Style. International Workshop Dec. 11-14, 2003.
41. Barfield W, Caudell T. Basic concepts in wearable computers and augmented reality. In: Barfield W, Caudell T, eds. Fundamentals of wearable computers and augmented reality. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001: 3-26.
42. Barfield W, Mann S, Baired K, et al. Computational clothing and accessories. In: Barfield W, Caudell T, eds. Fundamentals of wearable computers and augmented reality. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001: 471-509.
43. Catrysse M, Puers R, Hertleer C, et al. Towards the integration of textile sensors in a wireless monitoring suit. Sens Actuators A Phys 2004; 114: 302-311.
44. Satava RM, Jones SB. Medical applications for wearable computing. In: Barfield W, Caudell T, eds. Fundamentals of wearable computers and augmented reality. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001: 649-663.
45. Rolland JP, Fuchs H. Optical versus video see-through head mounted displays. In: Barfield W, Caudell T, eds. Fundamentals of wearable computers and augmented reality. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001: 113-156.
46. Wilhelm FH, Handke EA, Roth WT. Measurement of respiratory and cardiac function by the LifeShirt TM: Initial assessment of usability and reliability during ambulatory sleep monitoring. Biol Psychol 2002; 59: 250-251.
47. Levy ML, Day JD, Albuquerque F, et al. Heads-up intraoperative endoscopic imaging: A prospective evaluation of techniques and limitations. Neurosurgery 1997; 40: 526-531.
48. Block FE, Yablok DO, McDonald JS. Clinical evaluation of the "head-up" display of anesthesia data. Int.J Clin Monit Comput 1995; 12: 21-24.
49. Stokes AF, Wickens CD. Aviation displays. In: Weiner ER, Nagel DC, Eds. Human Factors in Aviation. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press; 1988: 387-432.
50. Cuschieri A. Visual displays and visual perception in minimal access surgery. Sem Laparoscop Surg 1995; 2: 209-214.
51. Van Koesveld JJM, Tetteroo GWM, de Graaf EJR. Use of head mounted display in transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 943-946.
52. Craven RM, McIndoe AK. Continuous auditory monitoring- how much information do we register? Brit J Anesth 1999; 83: 747-749.
53. Watson M, Sanderson P, Russell WJ. Tailoring reveals information requirements: The case of an aesthesia alarm. Interact Comput 2004; 16: 271-293.
54. Loeb RG, Fitch WT. A laboratory evaluation of an auditory display designed to enhance intraoperative monitoring. Anesth Analg. 2002; 94: 362-368.
55. Watson M, Sanderson P. Sonification supports eyes-free respiratory monitoring and task time-sharing. Human Factors 2004; 46: 497-517.
56. Bullinger HJ, Bauer W, Braun M. Virtual environments. In: Salvendy G. ed. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc; 1997: 1725-1759.
57. Loeb RG. Monitor surveillance and vigilance of anesthesia residents. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 527-533.
58. Finley GA, Cohen AJ. Perceived urgency and the anaesthetist: Responses to common operating room monitor alarms. Can J Anaesth 1991; 38: 958-964.
59. Loeb RC, Jones BR, Leonard RA et al. Recognition accuracy of current operating room alarms. Anesth Analg 1992; 75: 499-505.
60. Loeb RG. A measure of intraoperative attention to monitor display. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 337-341.
61. Sarter NB. Multimodal information presentation in support of human-automation communication and coordination. In: Salas E, ed. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research. New York; JAI Press; 2002: 13-36.
62. Tan HZ, Pentland A., Tactual displays for sensory substitution and wearable computers. In: Barfield W, Caudell T, eds. Fundamentals of wearable computers and augmented reality. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001: 579-598.
63. Sklar AE, Sarter NB. Good vibrations: Tactile feedback in support of attention allocation and human-automation coordination in event-driven domains. Human Factors 1999; 41: 543-552.
64. Putsep E. Modern Hospital. London: Lloyd-luke Ltd, 1981.
65. Shapiro RA, Berland T. Noise in the operating room. NEJM 1972; 287: 1236-1238.
66. Alarcon A, Berguer R. A comparison of operating room crowding between open and laparoscopic operations. Surg Endosc 1996; 10: 916-919.
67. Luttmann A, Sokeland J, Laurig W. Muscular strain and fatigue among urologists during transurethral resections using direct and monitor endoscopy. Eur Urol 1998; 43: 6-14.
68. Sheedy J, Bergstrom N. Performance and comfort on near-eye computer displays. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 306-312.
69. Woods AT, Newell FN. Visual, haptic and cross-modal recognition of objects and scenes. J Physiol 2004; 98: 147-159.
70. Oviatt S. Multimodal interface. In: Jacko J, Sears A, eds. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003: 286-304.
71. Gaba DM, Lee T. Measuring the workload of the anesthesiologist. Anesth Analg 1990; 71: 354-361.
72. Andre AD, Wickens CD. When users want what's not best for them. Ergonomics in Design 1995; 7: 10-14.