Evaluation eines integrierten OP-Saals auf Basis offener Standards in der Cochlea-Implantat-Chirurgie

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Die zunehmende Digitalisierung in der Chirurgie macht die Entwicklung moderner Operationskonzepte notwendig. Dabei werden neue Ansätze der Systemvernetzung und Integration auf Basis offener Standards der medizinischen Geräte verfolgt.

Methodik Gemeinsam mit dem Innovationszentrum für Computerassistierte Chirurgie (ICCAS) konnte die Demonstration eines integrierten OP-Saals am Beispiel der Cochlea-Implantation durchgeführt werden. Evaluiert wurden das präoperative Management, die intraoperativen Prozeduren sowie die postoperative Dokumentation von insgesamt n = 30 Studienteilnehmern (2 Gruppen). Neben der Erhebung objektiver Parameter kamen qualitative Fragebögen und quantitative, intervallskalierte Fragen zur Anwendung.

Ergebnisse Präoperativ wurde die digitale Präsentation klinischer Daten der Patienten von beiden Gruppen als hilfreich angesehen (Gruppe 1: Median = 5, Gruppe 2: Median = 4). Dies gilt auch für die personalisierten OP-Einstellungen, die intraoperativen Darstellungsmöglichkeiten sowie die dynamische, Operateur-zentrierte Visualisierung (Median = 4). Ähnlich positive Schlussfolgerungen wurden für die postoperative Dokumentation und die postoperative Nachsorge gezogen (Median = 4). Ein signifikanter Unterschied in der Gesamtbewertung des integrierten Operationskonzepts zwischen beiden Expertengruppen konnte nicht festgestellt werden (p > 0,05).

Schlussfolgerungen Die positiven Studienergebnisse zeigen, dass die theoretische Idee der Systemvernetzung auf der Basis offener Standards am Beispiel einer Cochlea-Implantation erfolgreich in die Praxis umgesetzt werden kann. Damit scheint der intelligente „Operationssaal der Zukunft“ keine fiktive Idee mehr zu sein, sondern ein realistisches Abbild der modernen chirurgischen Medizin.

Abstract

Background Digitalization in surgery makes it necessary to develop modern surgical concepts. New approaches to system networking with integration and open standardized communication of all medical devices are being pursued.

Methods At the University Hospital Leipzig, a demonstration of the integrated OR was carried out together with the Innovation Center for Computer Assisted Surgery (ICCAS) using the example of a cochlea implantation. The preoperative management, technical preparation, surgical procedure and postoperative documentation by a total of n = 30 study participants (2 expert groups) were evaluated. In addition to the collection of objective parameters, qualitative questionnaires and quantitative, interval-scaled questions were used.

Results Preoperatively, the digital presentation of the patient's clinical data was considered as helpful by both groups (group 1: median = 5, group 2: median = 4). This also applies to the personalized OR settings, the intraoperative display options and the dynamic, surgeon-centered visualization (median = 4). Similar positive conclusions were drawn for postoperative documentation and postoperative follow-up (median = 4). A significant difference in the final evaluation of the integrated surgical concept between the two expert groups could not be determined (p > 0.05).

Conclusions The positive study results show that the theoretical idea of system networking based on open standards can be successfully implemented in practice using the example of a cochlea implantation. Thus, the intelligent “operating room of the future” no longer seems to be a fictitious idea, but a realistic image of modern surgical medicine.

Schlüsselwörter

digitaler OP-Saal - offene Standards - Systemvernetzung - Interoperabilität - Cochlea-Implantation

Key words

digital operating room - open standards - system networking - interoperability - Cochlea implantation

Publication History

Received: 21 October 2020

Accepted: 04 January 2021

Article published online:
25 January 2021

• Literatur

• 1 Budde C, Lissat A, Brüning R. „iDoc“: Unterstützung, aber kein Ersatz. Dtsch Arztebl 2018; 115 (26) 1062-1064
• 2 Kuhn S, Jungmann SM, Jungmann F. Künstliche Intelligenz für Ärzte und Patienten: „Googeln“ war gestern. Dtsch Arztebl 2018; 115 (26) 1066-1069
• 3 Blaser J. Challenges of Digital Medicine. Praxis (Bern 1994) 2018; 107 (13) 712-716
• 4 Sharma A, Harrington RA, McClellan MB. et al. Using Digital Health Technology to Better Generate Evidence and Deliver Evidence-Based Care. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71 (23) 2680-2690
• 5 Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA. et al. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010; 252 (02) 254-262
• 6 Franke S, Rockstroh M, Hofer M. et al. The intelligent OR: design and validation of a context-aware surgical working environment. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2018; 13 (08) 1301-1308
• 7 Rockstroh M, Franke S, Hofer M. et al. OR.NET: multi-perspective qualitative evaluation of an integrated operating room based on IEEE 11073 SDC. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2017; 12 (08) 1461-1469
• 8 OR.NET-Forschungskonsortium (2018) OR.NET – Sichere dynamische Vernetzung in Operationssaal und Klinik [Online]. Available ([last accessed 03 Sep 2020]): http://www.ornet.org
• 9 ICCAS website. Available [last accessed 04 Dec 2019]: https://www.iccas.de/
• 10 Kasparick M, Rockstroh M, Schlichtling S. et al. “Mechanism for safe remote activation of networked surgical and PoC devices using dynamic assignable controls,” 2016 38^th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). Orlando, FL: 2016: 2390-2394 DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2016.7591211
• 11 Franke S, Rockstroh M, Schreiber E. et al. Context-aware medical assistance systems in integrated surgical environments. 28^th conference of the international society for medical innovation and technology (SMIT). Delft, Netherlands; 2016 98.
• 12 Valsamis EM, Chouari T, O'Dowd-Booth C. et al. Learning curves in surgery: variables, analysis and applications. Postgrad Med J 2018; 94: 525-530
• 13 Mazzon G, Sridhar A, Busuttil G. et al. Learning Curves for Robotic Surgery: a Review of the Recent Literature. Curr Urol Rep 2017; 18 (11) 89
• 14 Khan N, Abboudi H, Khan MS. et al. Measuring the surgical ‘learning curve’: methods, variables and competency. BJU Int 2014; 113 (03) 504-508
• 15 Kasparick M, Schlichting S, Golatowski F. et al. “New IEEE 11073 standards for interoperable, networked point-of-care Medical Devices,” 2015 37^th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). Milan: 2015: 1721-1724 DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7318709
• 16 Mildner A, Janß A, Dell’Anna-Pudlik J. et al. Development of Device-and Service-Profiles for a Safe and Secure Interconnection of Medical Devices in the Integrated Open OR. RISK 2015; 9488: 65-74
• 17 Schipper J, Klenzer T, Aschendorff A. et al. Navigation-controlled cochleostomy. Is an improvement in the quality of results for cochlear implant surgery possible?. HNO 2004; 52 (04) 329-325
• 18 Maktabi M, Neumuth T. Situation-Dependent Medical Device Risk Estimation: Design and Evaluation of an Equipment Management Center For Vendor-Independent Integrated Operating Rooms. J Patient Saf 2017; DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000455.
• 19 Prasser F, Kohlbacher O, Mansmann U. et al. Data Integration for Future Medicine (DIFUTURE). Methods Inf Med 2018; 57 (Suppl. 01) e57-e65
• 20 Franke S, Rockstroh M, Schreiber E. et al Towards the intelligent OR – Implementation of distributed, context-aware automation in an integrated surgical working environment. 19^th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI). Athens, GR 2016
• 21 Arney D, Goldman JM, Bhargav-Spantzel A. et al. Simulation of medical device network performance and requirements for an integrated clinical environment. Biomed Intrum Technol 2012; 46 (04) 308-315
• 22 Arney D, Plourde J, Goldman JM. OpenICE medical device interoperability platform overview and requirement analysis. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2018; 63 (01) 39-47
• 23 Franke S, Meixensberger J, Neumuth T. Multi-perspective workflow modeling for online surgical situation models. J Biomed Inform 2015; 54: 158-166
• 24 Okamoto J, Masamune K, Iseki H. et al. Development concepts of a Smart Cyber Operating Theater (SCOT) using ORiN technology. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2018; 63 (01) 31-37
• 25 Neumann J, Wiemuth M, Burgert O. et al. Application of activity semantics and BPMN 2.0 in the generation and modeling of generic surgical process models. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2017; 12 (Suppl. 01) 48-49
• 26 Neumann J, Rockstroh M, Franke S. et al BPMNSIX – A BPMN 2.0 Surgical Intervention Extension. 7^th Workshop on Modeling and Monitoring of Computer Assisted Interventions (M2CAI) – 19th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interventions (MICCAI). Athens, GR 2016
• 27 Pernar LIM, Robertson FC, Tavakkoli A. et al. An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery. Surg Endosc 2017; 31 (11) 4583-4596
• 28 Meier J, Bohn S, Glaser B. et al. The Treatment Planning Unit: Concept and realization of an integrated multimedia decision support system for multidisciplinary team meetings. Sao Paolo, BRA: MedInfo; 2015
• 29 Meier J, Dietz A, Boehm A. et al. Predicting treatment process steps from events. J Biomed Inform 2015; 53: 308-319
• 30 Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F. et al. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 598-606
• 31 Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J. et al. SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci(Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc 2015; 29 (10) 2873-2884