ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Our prototype wireless full-HD Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Display (AR-HMD) aims to eliminate surgeon head turning and reduce theater clutter. Learning and performance versus TV Monitors (TVM) is evaluated in simulated knee arthroscopy. METHODS: 19 surgeons and 19 novices were randomized into either the control group (A) or intervention group (B) and tasked to perform 5 simulated loose-body retrieval procedures on a bench-top knee arthroscopy simulator. A cross-over study design was adopted whereby subjects alternated between devices during trials 1-3, deemed the "Unfamiliar" phase, and then used the same device consecutively in trials 4-5, to assess performance in a more "Familiarized" state. Measured outcomes were time-to-completion and incidence of bead drops. RESULTS: In the unfamiliar phase, HMD had 67% longer mean time-to-completion than TVM (194.7 ± 152.6s vs 116.7 ± 78.7s, P < .001). Once familiarized, HMD remained inferior to TVM, with 48% longer completion times (133.8 ± 123.3s vs 90.6 ± 55s, P = .052). Cox regression revealed device type (OR = 0.526, CI 0.391-0.709, P < .001) and number of procedure repetitions (OR = 1.186, CI 1.072-1.311, P = .001) are significantly and independently related to faster time-to-completion. However, experience is not a significant factor (OR = 1.301, CI 0.971-1.741, P = .078). Bead drops were similar between the groups in both unfamiliar (HMD: 27 vs TVM: 22, P = .65) and familiarized phases (HMD: 11 vs TVM: 17, P = .97). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic procedures continue to be better performed under conventional TVM. However, similar quality levels can be reached by HMD when given more time. Given the theoretical advantages, further research into improving HMD designs is advocated.
Subject(s)
Arthroscopy , Smart Glasses , Humans , Cross-Over StudiesABSTRACT
Introduction: As the global number of geriatric hip fracture cases continues to proliferate, a newly developed orthogeriatric co-management multidisciplinary care model has been implemented since November 2018 to meet further increases in demand. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the new pathway in improving the clinical outcomes of fragility hip fractures. Methods: The data of geriatric hip fracture patients from 1 April 2018 till 30 October 2018 was collected as the conventional orthopaedic care model (pre-orthogeriatric care model) to compare with data from the orthogeriatric co-management model, 1 Feb 2019 till 31 August 2019. Clinical outcomes were analyzed between the groups, with the efficiency of the programme reflected in the total length of stay in acute and convalescent hospitals. Results: 194 patients were recruited to the conventional group and 207 were recruited to the orthogeriatric group, 290 patients (72.3%) were female. The mean (SD) patient age was 84.2 (7.9) years. The median length of stay in the acute and rehabilitation hospitals decreased by 1 day and 2 days, respectively (P=.001). The orthogeriatric group was associated with a higher Modified Barthel Index score on discharge from the rehabilitation hospital and more patients in the orthogeriatric collaboration group received osteoporosis medication prescription within one year after the index fracture. There was no difference in the 28-days unplanned readmission rate, complication rate, mortality rate or Elderly Mobility Scale scores on discharge from the rehabilitation hospital between the two groups. Conclusion: Orthogeriatric collaboration has been proven to be effective in terms of a decreased length of stay in both the acute and the rehabilitation hospitals.
