Ergonomic evaluation of 3D plane positioning using a mouse and a haptic device

International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 435-443

  Paul, Laurent ^a   Cartiaux, Olivier ^a,b   Docquier, Pierre Louis ^a   Banse, Xavier ^a  

^a CLINIQUES UNIVERSITAIRES SAINT LUC   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

3D plane; Ergonomics; Haptic; Osteotomy; Preoperative planning; Tumoural surgery

Indexed keywords

FAILURE ANALYSIS; MAMMALS; MEDICAL APPLICATIONS; SURGERY;

3D PLANES; 3D SPACES; ERGONOMIC EVALUATION; FAILURE RATE; FORCE-FEEDBACK; HAPTIC DEVICES; HAPTICS; OSTEOTOMY; PRE-OPERATIVE PLANNING; TUMOURAL SURGERY;

ERGONOMICS;

ARTICLE; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVICE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ERGONOMICS; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; POSITION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; TASK PERFORMANCE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

EID: 73449135120     PISSN: 14785951     EISSN: 1478596X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.275     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, et al. Reconstruction of the hemipelvis after the excision of malignant tumours. complications and functional outcome of prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79: 773-779.
2. Wirbel RJ, Schulte M, Maier B, et al. Megaprosthetic replacement of the pelvis: function in 17 cases. Acta Orthop 1999; 70: 348-352.
3. Scully SP, Temple HT, O'Keefe RJ, et al. Role of surgical resection in pelvic Ewing's sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2336-2341.
4. Campanacci M, Capanna R. Pelvic resections: the Rizzoli Institute experience. Orthop Clin North Am 1991; 22: 65-86.
5. Müller PE, Dürr HR, Wegener B, et al. Internal hemipelvectomy and reconstruction with a megaprosthesis. Int Orthop 2002; 26: 76-79.
6. Delloye C, Banse X, Brichard B, et al. Pelvic reconstruction with a structural pelvic allograft after resection of a malignant bone tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 579-587.
7. Aro HT, Chao EY. Bone-healing patterns affected by loading, fracture fragment stability, fracture type, and fracture site compression. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 293: 8-17.
8. Mankin HJ, Hornicek FJ, Raskin KA. Infection in massive bone allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 432: 210-216.
9. Donati D, Di Liddo M, Zavatta M, et al. Massive bone allograft reconstruction in high-grade osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; 377: 186-194.
10. Hornicek FJ, Gebhardt MC, Tomford WW, et al. Factors affecting nonunion of the allograft-host junction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 382: 87-98.
11. Cartiaux O, Docquier P, Paul L, et al. Surgical inaccuracy of tumor resection and reconstruction within the pelvis: an experimental study. Acta Orthop 2008; 79: 695-702.
12. Gupta R, Whitney D, Zeltzer D. Prototyping and design for assembly analysis using multimodal virtual environments. Comput Aided Des 1997; 29: 585-597.
13. Lim T, Ritchie JM, Dewar RG, et al. Factors affecting user performance in haptic assembly. Virtual Real 2007; 11: 241-252.
14. Unger B, Nicolaidis A, Berkelman P, et al. Comparison of 3D haptic peg-in-hole tasks in real and virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS '01), Maui, Hawaicombining diaeresis below, USA, 29 October-3 November 2001. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ, 2001; p. 1751-1756.
15. Bluteau J, Coquillart S, Payan Y, et al. Haptic guidance improves the visuo-manual tracking of trajectories. PLoS ONE 2008; 3: e1775.
16. Heng P, Wong T, Yang R, et al. Intelligent inferencing and haptic simulation for Chinese acupuncture learning and training. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2006; 10: 28-41.
17. Maciel A, Liu Y, Ahn W, et al. Development of the vblast: a virtual basic laparoscopic skill trainer. Int J Med Robot 2008; 4: 131-138.
18. Moody L, Waterworth A, McCarthy AD, et al. The feasibility of a mixed reality surgical training environment. Virtual Real 2008; 12: 77-86.
19. Pettersson J, Palmerius KL, Knutsson H, et al. Simulation of patient specific cervical hip fracture surgery with a volume haptic interface. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008; 55: 1255-1265.
20. Fornaro J, Harders M, Keel M, et al. Interactive visuo-haptic surgical planning tool for pelvic and acetabular fractures. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008; 132: 123-125.
21. Erdöhelyi B, Varga E, Kuba A. Surgical planning tool with biomechanical simulation. Proceedings from the conference "International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery", Berlin, Germany, 27-30 June 2007, Lemke H, Inamura K, Doi K, et al. (eds). Springer: Berlin, 2007; 262-263.
22. Wörn H. Computer- and robot-aided head surgery. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2006; 98: 51-61.
23. Schorr O, Raczkowsky J, Wörn H. Simulation for preoperative planning and intraoperative application of titanium implants. In Surgery Simulation and Soft Tissue Modeling, Ayache N, Delingette H (eds). Springer: Berlin, 2003; 67-73.
24. Ibanez L, Schroeder W, Ng L, et al. The ITK Software Guide 1.4, 1st edn. Kitware Inc: New York, 2003.
25. Schroeder W, Martin K, Lorensen B. The Visualization Toolkit: An Object-oriented Approach to 3D Graphics, 4th edn. Kitware Inc: New York, 2006.
26. Lorensen WE, Cline HE. Marching cubes: a high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 1987; 21: 163-169.
27. Cartiaux O, Paul L, Docquier P, et al. Accuracy in planar cutting of bones: an iso-based evaluation. Int J Med Robot 2009; 5: 77-84.
28. Brooke J. SUS: a 'quick and dirty' usability scale. In Usability Evaluation in Industry, Jordan PW, Thomas B, McClelland IL, Weerdmeester B (eds). Taylor and Francis: London, 1996; 189-195.
29. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932; 22: 1-55.
30. Sener B, Wormald P, Campbell I. Evaluating a haptic modelling system with industrial designers. In Proceedings of the Eurohaptics International Conference, Edinburgh, UK, 8-10 July 2002, Wall S, Riedel B, Crossan A, McGee M (eds).