Marie Curie Action

Assising Quality of Computer Systems and User interfaces of Future Medical Workplaces - Augmented Reality for Minimally Invasive Therapy

Thomas Studeli(1), Adinda.Freudenthal(1), Eigil Samset(2)

Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands

Interventional Centre, University od Oslo, Norway & Bringham and Women's Hospital, Harvard University, USA

e-mail: T.P.Studeli@tudelft.nl

Web: http://www.ariser.info and htpp://www.io.tudelft.nl

Background- Minimally invasive therapies and its key limiting factors

Minimally invasive therapy is one of the most important trends in modern medicine. It is performed through one or several small insertions, using specialized medical instruments such as endoscopic videos and robotic tools. Recently new materials and technologies led to new developments in the domain of computer guided surgery and and computer-enhanced surgical robotc systems. Samset (2005) described the current key limiting factors of MIT by: immature and unreliable tools for real-time 3D-navigation, fragmented research (geographicaly and disciplinary) and lack of researchers capable to operate across the integrated fields of 3D visualisation, image processing, robotics and radiology as while having sufficient insight into relevant ergonomic aspects for MIT.

The European research training network "Augmented Reality in Surgery" (ARIS*ER)aims to fill this gap (Freudenthal et al 2005). Human factors (HF) specialists are equal partners in the ARIS*ER consortium; research in the core technologie goes parallel with ergonomic research. The design of the user inerfaces is effectuated by a user centered approach in iterative steps (Freudenthal 2005) and involves all eight partners: engineers (image processing (segmentation and registration), robotics, 3D visualisation and tracking), surgeons and human factors specialists. To fulfil the high aim to face the lack of sensory feedback and information support for the surgical team, the system will have to achieve highest quality as well in usabiility (e.g. DIN EN 60601-1-6), safety, medical and technical aspects.

Methodology - How to evaluate not yet exiting technology?

The challenge for the HF specialists is to guide: 1) an iterative design process that consits of parallel research and engineering tasks, and 2) an evaluation that takes in account major advances in technology during the design process by parallel research. To support this research in the core technology in the best adapted way for the design, we have chosen to analyze the functions and tasks of future systems taking in account major breakthroughs in technology. In our opinion it makes no sense to do ergonomic research or usability studies on current technology. The benefit of looking into the future and describing future posibilities is that more precise and beneficial input for actual running system of the future and describing future possibilities is that more precise and beneficial input for actual running system of the future can be given (studeli et al. 2007). With each design and research iteration user requirements are investigated, advances in technology opportunities ate matched, and possible solutions are selected and evaluated (Freudenthal et al. 2005). For all these tasks HF specialists, engineers and surgeons work in close collaboration in focus groups. The applied participatory methods are e.g. task analysis, usability walkthroughs, functional descriptions of prototypes and demonstrators and storyboards.

Conclusions

We evaluate system quality up to a certain degree and with restrictions already during the design process. We do this based on descriptions of hypothetic functions, as well as on running prototypes and demonstrators. The evaluation is iterative, takes into account improvements in the core technologies and is effectuated with participatory methods.

references