Human/robotic interaction: vision limits performance in simulated vitreoretinal surgery

Purpose Compare accuracy and precision in XYZ of stationary and dynamic tasks performed by surgeons with and without the use of a tele‐operated robotic micromanipulator in a simulated vitreoretinal environment. The tasks were performed using a surgical microscope or while observing a video monitor....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) England), 2019-11, Vol.97 (7), p.672-678
Main Authors: Smet, Marc D., Jonge, Nicky, Iannetta, Danilo, Faridpooya, Koorosh, Oosterhout, Eric, Naus, Gerrit, Meenink, Thijs C.M., Mura, Marco, Beelen, Maarten J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Clinical Competence
depth perception
Education, Medical, Graduate - methods
Humans
Ophthalmology - education
precision
Reproducibility of Results
Retinal Diseases - surgery
Robotic surgery
Robotics
Robotics - education
Robotics - methods
simulation
Surgeons
telemanipulation
Telemedicine - methods
Visualization
vitreoretinal surgery
Vitreoretinal Surgery - education
Vitreoretinal Surgery - methods
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Compare accuracy and precision in XYZ of stationary and dynamic tasks performed by surgeons with and without the use of a tele‐operated robotic micromanipulator in a simulated vitreoretinal environment. The tasks were performed using a surgical microscope or while observing a video monitor. Method Two experienced and two novice surgeons performed tracking and static tasks at a fixed depth with hand‐held instruments on a Preceyes Surgical System R0.4. Visualization was through a standard microscope or a video display. The distances between the instrument tip and the targets (in μm) determined tracking errors in accuracy and precision. Results Using a microscope, dynamic or static accuracy and precision in XY (planar) movements were similar among test subjects. In Z (depth) movements, experience lead to more precision in both dynamic and static tasks (dynamic 35 ± 14 versus 60 ± 37 μm; static 27 ± 8 versus 36 ± 10 μm), and more accuracy in dynamic tasks (58 ± 35 versus 109 ± 79 μm). Robotic assistance improved both precision and accuracy in Z (1–3 ± 1 μm) in both groups. Using a video screen in combination with robotic assistance improved all performance measurements and reduced any differences due to experience. Conclusions Robotics increases precision and accuracy, with greater benefit observed in less experienced surgeons. However, human control was a limiting factor in the achieved improvement. A major limitation was visualization of the target surface, in particular in depth. To maximize the benefit of robotic assistance, visualization must be optimized.
ISSN:1755-375X
1755-3768
DOI:10.1111/aos.14003