SMART GLASSES: DO THEY HAVE A ROLE IN THE ANGIOGRAPHY SUITE?
Introduction: The ergonomic stress associated with performing endovascular procedures leads vascular surgeons to frequently assume a set of postures and movements for image control. This results in an increased long-term risk of devel- oping musculoskeletal pathology. The use of smart glasses may play a role in reducing this risk, allowing the professional to control the procedure without the need for constant repositioning. Through the application of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) questionnaire, we compared the ergonomic risk during endovascular procedures with and without the use of smart glasses.
Methods: The QEC was applied by an external observer during endovascular procedures with and without the use of a pair of Epson Moverio BT-35E® smart glasses. The two groups of procedures were compared in relation to total QEC score and partial scores that assessed the risk for different anatomic segments (cervical spine, lumbar spine, shoulder / arm and wrist/hand). The partial self-perceived stress and work rhythm scores, evaluated by the professional, were also compared.
Results: The QEC was applied to a total of 12 procedures. The procedures with the use of smart glasses (n=6) obtained a significantly lower average total score in the QEC (83.7 — low ergonomic risk) compared to the procedures without using smart glasses (108.3 — moderate ergonomic risk; p = 0.009). The average partial scores for cervical and lumbar spine were also significantly lower in this group (lumbar: 11.3 vs 18; p = 0.002) (cervical: 18 vs 26.7; p = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found in the average partial scores for the shoulder/arm and wrist/hand, nor for the partial scores of self-perceived stress and work rhythm.
Conclusion: The use of smart glasses during endovascular surgery was shown to reduce the ergonomic risk, assessed by the QEC scale, from moderate to low. This reduction is mainly due to a reduction in the risk of musculoskeletal disorders at the level of the spine and neck.
2. Mitrasinovic S, Camacho E, Trivedi N, et al. Clinical and surgical applications of smart glasses. Technol Heal Care. 2015;23(4):381-401. doi:10.3233/THC-150910
3. Comper MLC, Costa LOP, Padula RS. Clinimetric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC). Rev Bras Fisioter. 16(6):487-494. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23032294. Accessed June 13, 2019.
4. Goldstein JA, Balter S, Cowley M, Hodgson J, Klein LW. Occupational hazards of interventional cardiologists: Prevalence of orthopedic health problems in contemporary practice. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63(4):407-411. doi:10.1002/ccd.20201
5. Machan L. Risks of Back Injury. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(2):P130-P131. doi:10.1016/S1051-0443(02)70077-8
6. Moore B, vanSonnenberg E, Casola G, Novelline RA. The relationship between back pain and lead apron use in radiologists. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158(1):191-193. doi:10.2214/ajr.158.1.1530763
7. Wei NJ, Dougherty B, Myers A, Badawy SM. Using Google Glass in Surgical Settings: Systematic Review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6(3):e54. doi:10.2196/mhealth.9409