A comparison of perceived image quality between computer display monitors and augmented reality smart glasses.

INTRODUCTION: Augmented-reality (AR) smart glasses provide an alternative to standard computer display monitors (CDM). AR smart glasses may provide an opportunity to improve visualisation during fluoroscopy and interventional radiology (IR) procedures when there can be difficulty in viewing intra-procedural images on a CDM. The aim of this study was to evaluate radiographer perception of image quality (IQ) when comparing CDM and AR smart glasses. METHODS: 38 radiographers attending an international congress evaluated ten fluoroscopic-guided surgery and IR images on both a CDM (1920 × 1200 pixels) and a set of Epson Moverio BT-40 AR smart glasses (1920 × 1080 pixels). Participants provided oral responses to pre-defined IQ questions generated by study researchers. Summative IQ scores for each participant/image were compared between CDM and AR smart glasses. RESULTS: Of the 38 participants, the mean age was 39 ± 1 years. 23 (60.5%) participants required corrective glasses. In terms of generalisability, participants were from 12 different countries, the majority (n = 9, 23.7%) from the United Kingdom. For eight out of ten images, the AR smart glasses demonstrated a statistically significant increase in perceived IQ (median [IQR] 2.0 [-1.0 to 7.0] points) when compared to the CDM. CONCLUSION: AR smart glasses appear to show improvements in perceived IQ when compared to a CDM. AR smart glasses could provide an option for improving the experiences of radiographers involved in image-guided procedures and should be subject to further clinical evaluations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Opportunities exist to improve perceived IQ for radiographers when reviewing fluoroscopy and IR images. AR smart glasses should be further evaluated as a potential opportunity to improve practice when visual attention is split between positioning equipment and image review.

Radiation protection value to the operator from augmented reality smart glasses in interventional fluoroscopy procedures using phantoms.

INTRODUCTION: Smart glasses can be adapted to display radiographic images to allow clinician's gaze not to be directionally fixed or predetermined by computer monitor location. This study presents an analysis of eye lens dose during interventional fluoroscopy guided procedures, comparing fixed monitor positions against the use of smart glasses. METHODS: Using a head phantom (simulating the clinician), thermoluminescent dosimeters and lead shielded glasses, the dose to the eye was measured for different head 'rotations and tilts' for: gaze directed towards the main scattering source (patient/primary beam) to represent potential gaze direction if smart glasses are used; gaze directed to a range of potential computer monitor positions. An anthropomorphic pelvis phantom was utilised to simulate the patient. Accumulated dose rates (µGy s-1) from five 10-second exposures at 75 kV 25.2 mAs were recorded. RESULTS: An average DAP reading of 758.84 cGy cm2 was measured during each 10 second exposure. Whilst wearing lead shielded glasses a 6.10 - fold reduction in dose rate to the lens is possible (p < 0.05). Influence of the direction of gaze by the clinician demonstrated a wide range of dose rate reduction from 3.13% (p = 0.16) to 143.69% (p < 0.05) when the clinician's gaze was towards the main scattering source. Increased dose rate to the clinician's eyes was received despite wearing lead shielded glasses, as the angle of gaze moved 45° and 90° from 0°. CONCLUSION: If the clinician's gaze is directed towards the main scattering source a potential exists for reducing eye lens dose compared with fixed location computer monitors. Introduction of lead lined smart glasses into interventional radiology may lead to improvements in patient care, reducing the need for the clinician to look away from the patient to observe a radiographic image.