RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aims of the present study were (a) to compare the scanning time and image count to complete optical scans of a typodont between augmented-reality-assisted intraoral scanning (ARIOS) and intraoral scanning (IOS); (b) to compare the accuracy of the digital casts derived from ARIOS and IOS; (c) to compare participant-related outcomes between ARIOS and IOS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-session within-subject experiment was conducted to compare ARIOS and IOS. Thirty-one dental students participated in the study. Following a trial session, each participant obtained optical scans under ARIOS and IOS conditions. The time required to complete the scan, and the number of images taken were recorded. Participant feedback was collected using entry, exit, and NASA-Task Load Index (TLX) surveys. The accuracy of the digital casts derived from the optical scans was measured in root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS: The present study found a 6.8% increase in preference for ARIOS from entry to exit survey. Slightly more participants favored the ARIOS setup compared to IOS; 54.8% of participants favored ARIOS, 9.7% were indifferent, and 35.5% favored IOS. NASA-TLX subscale ratings were higher for IOS in general apart from mental demand. The accuracy of the digital casts between ARIOS and IOS was comparable in RMSE. CONCLUSION: ARIOS was advantageous compared to IOS in ergonomics, improved scanner tracking, and ease of scanner orientation. However additional trials, increased field of view, and better superimposition of scanning status to the target site were improvements desired by the study participants.
RESUMEN
Background: Augmented reality (AR) guidance holds potential to improve transcatheter interventions by enabling visualization of and interaction with patient-specific 3-dimensional virtual content. Positioning of cerebral embolic protection devices (CEP) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) increases patient exposure to radiation and iodinated contrast, and increases procedure time. AR may enhance procedural guidance and facilitate a safer intervention. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a novel AR guidance system with a custom user interface that displays virtual, patient-specific 3-dimensional anatomic models, and assess its intraprocedural impact during CEP placement in TAVR. Methods: Patients undergoing CEP during TAVR were prospectively enrolled and assigned to either AR guidance or control groups. Primary endpoints were contrast volume used prior to filter placement, times to filter placement, and fluoroscopy time. Postprocedure questionnaires were administered to assess intraprocedural physician experience with AR guidance. Results: A total of 24 patients presenting for TAVR were enrolled in the study (12 with AR guidance and 12 controls). AR guidance eliminated the need for aortic arch angiograms prior to device placement thus reducing contrast volume (0 mL vs 15 mL, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the time required for filter placement or fluoroscopy time. Postprocedure questionnaires indicated that AR guidance increased confidence in wiring of the aortic arch and facilitated easier device placement. Conclusions: We developed a novel AR guidance system that eliminated the need for additional intraprocedural angiograms prior to device placement without any significant difference in time to intervention and offered a subjective improvement in performance of the intervention.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Health care organizations increasingly use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to capture patients' health status. Although federal policy mandates PRO collection, the challenge remains to better engage patients in PRO surveys, and ensure patients comprehend the surveys and their results. OBJECTIVE: This article identifies the design requirements for an interface that assists patients with PRO survey completion and interpretation, and then builds and evaluates the interface. METHODS: We employed a user-centered design process that consisted of three stages. First, we conducted qualitative interviews and surveys with 13 patients and 11 health care providers to understand their perceptions of the value and challenges associated with the use of PRO measures. Second, we used the results to identify design requirements for an interface that collects PROs, and designed the interface. Third, we conducted usability testing with 12 additional patients in a hospital setting. RESULTS: In interviews, patients and providers reported that PRO surveys help patients to reflect on their symptoms, potentially identifying new opportunities for improved care. However, 6 out of 13 patients reported significant difficultly in understanding PRO survey questions, answer choices and results. Therefore, we identified aiding comprehension as a key design requirement, and incorporated visualizations into our interface design to aid comprehension. In usability testing, patients found the interface highly usable. CONCLUSION: Future interfaces designed to collect PROs may benefit from employing strategies such as visualization to aid comprehension and engage patients with surveys.