Evaluation of four cursor control devices during a target acquisition task for laparoscopic tool control.

Current laparoscopic surgery instruments create awkward postures which produce fatigue and pressure points in surgeons. In order to alleviate some of this discomfort a new laparoscopic tool had been developed with the inclusion of an articulating end-effector manipulated by a trackball. The current study was developed to access the performance of four input devices which could replace the manual trackball in a powered laparoscopic tool. A simple Fitts' law task was conducted and the devices' performance was evaluated with both subjective and objective measures. This article makes three main contributions to the scientific community. First, it provides a comparison of four control devices (TouchPad, Mouse Button Module, MiniJoystick Module and MicroJoystick) for use in a powered laparoscopic tool. Second, it provides an understanding of how the non-traditional measure of target re-entry can be utilized to compare control devices and how this relates to the more traditional measures of throughput and error rate. Finally, it contributes to the understanding of how a user's familiarity with a control device could affect the subjective and objective performance of the device. The main results indicate that the TouchPad and MicroJoystick are the best candidate-devices for use in a powered laparoscopic tool. The article also provides support for utilizing the new measure target re-entry when comparing control performance. Although studied in the application of laparoscopic surgery, the results can be generalized for the design of any hand-held device in which the speed and accuracy of the control device is critical.

Evaluation of a two cursor control device for development of a powered laparoscopic surgical tool.

The current study was performed to test two electronic cursor control devices (a Touchpad and a MicroJoystick) for use in an articulating powered laparoscopic tool. A simple target acquisition test was conducted to test how well the cursor control devices could be manipulated and how accurate they were (including endpoint and movement path). The study varied the width (0.27, 0.54 and 1.07 cm) of the target as well as the hand position used (thumb and index finger control). Additionally, each participant was able to choose their ideal operating cursor speed for each cursor control device. The MicroJoystick had a higher throughput and movement variability than the Touchpad. In all other categories tested, the cursor control devices did not differ significantly. The speed of the cursor control devices did not affect the performance of the devices; therefore, the ideal cursor speed could be chosen by the participant. Finally, the hand position did not affect the performance of the devices. This experiment found both hand positions, cursor control devices and all speeds could be used to effectively manipulate an articulating end-effector in a powered, cauterising, laparoscopic tool. This article addresses the advantages and limitations of two control mechanisms for laparoscopic tool controls considering both the subjective and objective data. The controls are tested in two hand positions to test how well the participants can manipulate the device while minimising perceived fatigue.