Abstract
Background
Integrated operation systems were developed for centralization and easy control of all components within the operating room (OR). These systems represent central units that use communication technology to connect and control various components of the OR. Voice control that is independent of the speaker has been a pioneering innovation in the central control of different OR components. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the utility of two voice-activated control systems, the Siemens Integrated OR System (SIOS, Siemens Medical Solutions, Siemens AG) and the OR1 (Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG), for delivery of commands to specific OR equipment.
Methods
To compare the two systems, actions such as adjusting the operating table, increasing gas pressure, switching on the video recorder, and controlling the endolight source were defined according to a study protocol. These actions were to be executed by test persons through speech and manual control after a suitable training period. The parameters evaluated were training time, time to execute each action, number of repeated commands, and number of functional errors.
Results
Seventy-four test persons from five nations were selected to participate. The numbers of repeated commands and functional errors differed significantly between systems in all user groups in favor of the SIOS (mean repeated commands for surgeons: SIOS, 2.4; OR1, 14.7, p < 0.0001).
Conclusion
The SIOS voice control was more effective and more reliable than that of the OR1. Importantly, unlike the OR1, the SIOS produced no functional errors. The appropriate conditions for greater acceptance of these systems must be considered, together with additional technical improvements and possible combinations of advantages of the available systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ballantyne GH, Begos DG (1996) Operating room setup. In: Jager RM, Wexner SD (eds) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 105–126
Ballantyne G, Leahy P, Modlin I (1994) Laparoscopic surgery. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 3–14, 15–21, 22–33, 34–41, 77–84
Berci G, Sackier J (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Probl Gen Surg 8:284–319
Classen N, Phillip J (1984) Electronic endoscopy of the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopy 16:167–169
Corbitt JD (1991) Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:23–25
Endress A, Brucker S, Wallwiener D, Aydeniz B, Kurek R, Zubke W (2006) Systems integration in the operating room: the challenge of the decade. Gynecol Surg 3(1):6
Federspil PA, Stallkamp J, Plinkert PK (2001) Robotics a new dimension in otorhinolaryngology? HNO 49(7):505–513
Fowler D, White S (1991) Laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:183–188
Hance J, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Robotics in colorectal surgery. Dig Surg 21:339–343
Hirschowitz B (1963) Photography through the fiber gastroscope. Am J Dig Dis 8:389–395
Horbach T, Perrakis A, Hohenberger W, Schick CH (2005) Analyse der Funktionalität von Sprachsteuerungssystemen in einem integrierten Operationssaal für minimal invasive Chirurgie. Endosk Heute 18:23–61
Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Lippert A, Köckerling F (2003) Biokompatibilität verschiedener Polypropylene-Netze unter Berücksichtigung der Handhabbarkeit bei der totalen extraperitonealen Patchplastik (TEP). In: Köckerling F, Bittner R, Gastinger I, Lippert H (eds) Minimal invasive chirurgie, Band I, Science Med Dr. Sperber. 2. Auflage, Hannover, pp 13–14, 35–36
Visarious H, Gong J, Sheer C, Haralamb S, Nolte LP (1997) Man–machine interfaces in computer assisted surgery. Comput Aided Surg 2(2):102–107
MacFayden B, Arregui M, Olsen D, Soper N, Wexner S, Eubanks S, Peters S, Swanström L (2004) Laparoscopic surgery of the abdomen. Springer, New York, pp 34–36, 60–62, 153–158, 335–351, 451–455, 456–459
Mack MJ (2001) Minimally invasive and robotic surgery. JAMA 285(5):568–572
Punt MM, Stefels CN, Grimbergen CA, Dankelman J (2005) Evaluation of voice control, touch panel control and assistant control during steering of an endoscope. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14(3):181–187
Ruurda JP, Draaisma WA, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IHM, Gooszen HG, Janssen LWM, Simmermacher RKJ, Broeders IAMJ (2006) Robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a four-year single-center experience. Dig Surg 22:313–320
Salama IA, Schwaitzberg SD (2005) Utility of a voice-activated system in minimally invasive surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 15:443–446
Weerahandi S (1995) Exact statistical methods for data analysis. series in statistics. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 51–63
Acknowledgments
I would like to especially thank Dipl. Ing. Theodossios Papadimitropoulos, Applied Mathematic Science, National Technical University of Athens, for his essential contribution to the statistical analysis.
Disclosures
A. Perrakis, W. Hohenberger, and T. Horbach have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perrakis, A., Hohenberger, W. & Horbach, T. Integrated operation systems and voice recognition in minimally invasive surgery: comparison of two systems. Surg Endosc 27, 575–579 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2488-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2488-9