41 - Augmented Visualization in Interventional Radiology: User Feedback and Impact on Ergonomics

This study evaluated the clinical usability and impact on ergonomics of a head-mounted Augmented reality (AR) display during image-guided procedures.

Materials and Methods:

An AR headset (Allia IGS 740 with Omnify XR, GE HealthCare, USA) provided a virtual secondary monitor with up to four imaging sources and a 3D holographic display during interventional radiology (IR) procedures. Participating users completed an electronic survey (n=9) with 5-point Likert Scale prompts once per day on their experience using AR for procedures such as drainage (n=3), biopsy (n=6), endovascular (n=1), ablation (n=1), and cement augmentation (n=10). Surgeon kinematics were analyzed from data collected using one inertial measurement unit (Wit Motion, Guangdong, China) placed on the posterior aspect of the headset during 14 procedures (10 kyphoplasty procedures and 4 spine biopsy procedures) performed with (n=7) or without AR activated (n=7).

Results:

Users rated the AR headset as comfortable to use (median Likert score 5; IQR 1), easy to use (4; 1), safe for clinical use (4; 2), and as having a positive impact on operator ergonomics (5; 1). Despite mentioning technical limitations such as lag and connectivity issues (n=4) and image quality (n=4), Likert score ratings indicated that overall, the system was not limited by responsiveness/lag (2; 1), image quality was sufficient (3; 2), and users were willing to use AR again (5; 1). Analysis of kinematic data indicated that the number (median 31 vs 21, p = 0.007) and magnitude (median 78.4° vs 59.6°, p = 0.0002) of surgeon head turns made to look between imaging display and the surgical field was greater for procedures performed without AR, likely due to the adaptable positioning of the AR virtual secondary monitor.

Conclusion:

AR both subjectively and objectively improved ergonomics during IR procedures.