Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of user input methods for manipulating a tablet personal computer in sterile techniques

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine a quick and accurate user input method for manipulating tablet personal computers (PCs) in sterile techniques.

Methods

We evaluated three different manipulation methods, (1) Computer mouse and sterile system drape, (2) Fingers and sterile system drape, and (3) Digitizer stylus and sterile ultrasound probe cover with a pinhole, in terms of the central processing unit (CPU) performance, manipulation performance, and contactlessness.

Results

A significant decrease in CPU score (\(p< 0.001\)) and an increase in CPU temperature (\(p< 0.001\)) were observed when a system drape was used. The respective mean times taken to select a target image from an image series (ST) and the mean times for measuring points on an image (MT) were \(5.84 \pm 2.04\) and \(5.65 \pm 1.02\) s for the computer mouse method, \(6.67 \pm 3.12\) and \(3.89 \pm 0.91\) s for the finger method, and \(4.09 \pm 1.41\) and \(3.52 \pm 0.94\) s for the digitizer stylus method, respectively. The ST for the finger method was significantly longer than for the digitizer stylus method (\(p = 0.047\)). The MT for the computer mouse method was significantly longer than for the digitizer stylus method (\(p = 0.001\)). The mean success rate for measuring points on an image was significantly lower for the finger method when the diameter of the target was equal to or smaller than 8 mm than for the other methods. No significant difference in the adenosine triphosphate amount at the surface of the tablet PC was observed before, during, or after manipulation via the digitizer stylus method while wearing starch-powdered sterile gloves (\(p = 0.89\)).

Conclusions

Quick and accurate manipulation of tablet PCs in sterile techniques without CPU load is feasible using a digitizer stylus and sterile ultrasound probe cover with a pinhole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geeslin MG, Gaskin CM (2015) Electronic health record-driven workflow for diagnostic radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.08.008

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Faggioni L, Neri E, Castellana C, Caramella D, Bartolozzi C (2011) The future of PACS in healthcare enterprises. Eur J Radiol 78:253–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sherbondy AJ, Holmlund D, Rubin GD, Schraedley PK, Winograd T, Napel S (2005) Alternative input devices for efficient navigation of large CT angiography data sets. Radiology 234:391–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kotani K, Horii K (2003) An analysis of muscular load and performance in using a pen-tablet system. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Hum Sci 22:89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Weiss DL, Siddiqui KM, Scopelliti J (2006) Radiologist assessment of PACS user interface devices. J Am Coll Radiol 3:265–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jang SH, Kim WY (2004) Defining a new annotation object for DICOM image: a practical approach. Comput Med Imaging Graph 28:371–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Larsson SN, Stapleton S, Larsson L (2007) A comparison of speed and accuracy of contouring using mouse versus graphics tablet. Clin Oncol 19:S36–S36

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dowsett RJ, Galvin JM, Cheng E, Smith R, Epperson R, Henze G, Needham M, Payne R, Peterson MA, Skinner AL, Reynolds A (1992) Contouring structures for 3-dimensional treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 22:1083–1088

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ogura T, Sato M, Ishida Y, Hayashi N, Doi K (2014) Development of a novel method for manipulation of angiographic images by use of a motion sensor in operating rooms. Radiol Phys Technol 7:228–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Multi-Institutional Target Delineation in Oncology Group (2011) Human–computer interaction in radiotherapy target volume delineation: a prospective, multi-institutional comparison of user input devices. J Digit Imaging 24:794–803

  11. Chao C, Tan J, Castillo EM, Zawaideh M, Roberts AC, Kinney TB (2014) Comparative efficacy of new interfaces for intra-procedural imaging review: The Microsoft Kinect, Hillcrest Labs Loop Pointer, and the Apple iPad. J Digit Imaging 27:463–469

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy AD, Belcher HJ (2012) A novel method for sterile intra-operative iPad use. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65:403–404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Soehngen E, Rahmah NN, Kakizawa Y, Horiuchi T, Fujii Y, Kikuchi T, Hongo K (2012) Operation-microscope-mounted touch display tablet computer for intraoperative imaging visualization. World Neurosurg 77:381–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. MAXON Computer (2013) September 27, 2013. MAXON: News http://www.maxon.net/en/news/singleview-default/article/maxon-cinebench-r15-available-immediately-for-download.html. Accessed 8 May 2016

  15. Whitehead KA, Smith LA, Verran J (2008) The detection of food soils and cells on stainless steel using industrial methods: UV illumination and ATP bioluminescence. Int J Food Microbiol 30:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Osimani A, Garofalo C, Clementi F, Tavoletti S, Aquilanti L (2014) Bioluminescence ATP monitoring for the routine assessment of food contact surface cleanliness in a university canteen. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11:10824–10837

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Abe M, Nishimura K, Seki E, Haruna H, Hirasawa T, Ito S, Yoshiura T (2012) Lifetime prediction for heavy-duty industrial lithium-ion batteries that enables highly reliable system design. Hitachi Rev 61:259–263

    Google Scholar 

  18. Prattichizzo D, Meli L, Malvezzi M (2015) Digital handwriting with a finger or a stylus: a biomechanical comparison. IEEE Trans Heptics 8:356–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang H, Rush BR, Wilkerson M, van der Merwe D (2014) Exploring the use of tablet PCs in veteran medical education: Opportunity or obstacle? J Vet Med Educ 41:122–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahamed NU, Sundaraj K, Poo TS (2013) Design and development of an automated, portable and handheld tablet personal computer-based data acquisition system for monitoring electromyography signals during rehabilitation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 227:262–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mobasheri MH, Johnston M, Syed UM, King D, Darzi A (2015) The uses of smartphones and tablet devices in surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery 158:1352–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Toomey RJ, Ryan JT, McEntee MF, Evanoff MG, Chakraborty DP, McNulty JP, Manning DJ, Thomas EM, Brennan PC (2010) Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. Am J Roentgenol 194:469–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Speiser JJ, Hughes I, Mehta V, Wojcik EM, Hutchens KA (2014) Mobile teledermatopathology: Using a tablet PC as a novel and cost-efficient method to remotely diagnose dermatopathology cases. Am J Dermatopathol 36:54–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tomita T, Tanabe N, Yamamoto S, Shiraishi K, Kamo T, Koh M, Kashiwazaki D, Akioka N, Nagai S, Kuwayama N, Kuroda S (2016) Usefulness of tablet-type device usage during neurosurgical practice. No Shinkei Geka 44:403–408

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express thanks to our radiology residents, Dr. Mana Nakamura, Dr. Keisuke Todoroki, Dr. Kazuki Oyama, Dr. Fumihito Ichinohe, and Dr. Takanori Aonuma who joined as an examiner in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-1-1 Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan

    Akira Yamada, Daisuke Komatsu, Takeshi Suzuki, Masahiro Kurozumi, Yasunari Fujinaga, Kazuhiko Ueda & Masumi Kadoya

Authors
  1. Akira Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daisuke Komatsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takeshi Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masahiro Kurozumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yasunari Fujinaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kazuhiko Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Masumi Kadoya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akira Yamada.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest for all authors included in this study.

Human or animal rights

No human or animal subject was included in this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yamada, A., Komatsu, D., Suzuki, T. et al. Evaluation of user input methods for manipulating a tablet personal computer in sterile techniques. Int J CARS 12, 339–349 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1479-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1479-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation