Surgeons Perform UK's First Operation Using Apple's Vision Pro Headset 47
Surgeons in the United Kingdom have performed the first operation in the country using Apple's Vision Pro headset. TechSpot reports: During a recent operation to repair a patient's spine at the private Cromwell Hospital in London, a scrub nurse working alongside the surgeon used the Vision Pro to help prepare, keep track of the procedure, and choose the right tools, reports the Daily Mail. This marked the first operation in the UK where the Vision Pro was used. The software running on Apple's headset during the operation comes from US company eXeX, which has made similar programs for Microsoft's HoloLens. It offers nurses and technicians both holographic and touch-free access to the surgical setup and the procedural guides from within the sterile field of the operating room, according to the press release. The software also tracks each stage of an operation and can measure how well the op went compared to previous procedures performed by other surgeons.
"It eliminates human error and eliminates the guesswork," said Suvi Verho, lead scrub nurse at London Independent Hospital. "It gives you confidence in surgery." While this marked the first time that the Vision Pro was used during a UK surgery, the first-ever time the device was used in an operating room was last month, just three days after its release, when Orlando resident and world-renowned Neurosurgeon Dr. Robert Masson wore it during several spine reconstruction surgeries. "We are in a new era of surgery, and for the first time, our surgical teams have the brilliance of visual holographic guidance and maps, improving visuospatial and temporal orientation for each surgical team and for each surgery in all specialties," said Masson.
"It eliminates human error and eliminates the guesswork," said Suvi Verho, lead scrub nurse at London Independent Hospital. "It gives you confidence in surgery." While this marked the first time that the Vision Pro was used during a UK surgery, the first-ever time the device was used in an operating room was last month, just three days after its release, when Orlando resident and world-renowned Neurosurgeon Dr. Robert Masson wore it during several spine reconstruction surgeries. "We are in a new era of surgery, and for the first time, our surgical teams have the brilliance of visual holographic guidance and maps, improving visuospatial and temporal orientation for each surgical team and for each surgery in all specialties," said Masson.
Talk about a bait and switch. (Score:3)
The story title is very misleading.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's why there are so many infection issues for surgeries. The room isn't actually sterile. A dirty object straight from a factory could easily shed god knows what into an otherwise clean space.
Re: (Score:1)
2030 Headlines (Score:2)
"Studies show clipboard and paper more effective than Apple Vision Pro."
"Another patient died this week after the iSurgery app crashed during a complicated procedure."
"All surgery at a major hospital was halted for hours today after a network outage forced nurses to print paper copies of surgical checklists."
et cetera..
Re: (Score:1)
And also:
"China Routinely Uses VisionPro for Microsurgery"
"US Patients Flown To Shanghai for Lower-Cost Treatment, Better Outcomes"
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is just parroting Apple marketing. If there really was a breakthrough the article would have mentioned "VR headset". Instead it's only babbling about a specific model of the Apple headset. Sales must be disappointing. So the article is an ad and Slashdot is posting it for free because they think Apple are the cool guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the guy wearing them waves around trying to get gestures to work and punches a nurse he didn't see in his tiny FoV.
Portraying this as some step towards AR surgery is just a bold faced lie. I doubt it has anything to do with Apple either, it's just too blatant bullshit. My guess is that the surgeons and/or hospital are getting a kickback from eXeX.
What was that called again? (Score:2)
The Blue Screen of What?
Incorrect (Score:1)
I would much rather just have faith that the surgeons are highly trained and already know what they are doing in regard to the procedure and any complications that may arise. Or I would rather be operated on by robot - which is fine to be attached to a VR. But I don't need, or want, human hands guided by garbage AR in my potentially life or death surgery. I don't give a shit how world-renowned, or talented, Dr Masson is, his statement is pure bullshit, and I would never let him, or anyone championing him, a
Re: (Score:2)
I would much rather just have faith that the surgeons are highly trained and already know what they are doing in regard to the procedure and any complications that may arise.
That is a bad assumption.
Surgical teams who use checklists and flowcharts have significantly better results than those who rely on memorized expertise.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you fly a plane if a pilot wasn't using a checklist? You'll find that checklists are critical tools in many operations. It both provides a guide and a memory tool. Sometimes when system become too complex forgetfulness or over-confidence can get in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say to NOT use checklists and flowcharts? No. So, thank you for your useless input.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the implication
Re: (Score:2)
No. It was not. It was a terrible assumption based on one sentence of two paragraphs, of which nothing implies that they shouldn't use checklists and flowcharts.
What I implied was that using Vision Pros in this way isn't actually as useful, or game changing, as they're claiming. There's no reason the image feed and overlay being fed into the goggles couldn't just be put on a large HD screen with touchless interface - that way more than just the scrub nurse can keep an eye on things, if needed. The scrub nur
Re: (Score:2)
What I implied
What you meant*
Re: (Score:2)
No. Implied. With new further explanation of what, I thought, was very obvious, but clearly not to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is significantly improved by anyone having a Vision Pro on in a surgical room and you could accomplish the same thing with tech that's been available for 20+ years that aren't goggle based.
Jeebus!
The thing's barely been out a month and you make Pronouncements like that?
What an Ego!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because it's obvious and true. The Vision Pro does not do anything unique other than put the screen directly in front of one person's eyes and reduces their real-world peripheral vision. It's not integrated in a unique way. It doesn't perform any relevant unique functions. You can accomplish everything a Vision Pro is doing, and MORE, for less than half the cost without having anyone wear very tacky looking goggles.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because it's obvious and true. The Vision Pro does not do anything unique other than put the screen directly in front of one person's eyes and reduces their real-world peripheral vision. It's not integrated in a unique way. It doesn't perform any relevant unique functions. You can accomplish everything a Vision Pro is doing, and MORE, for less than half the cost without having anyone wear very tacky looking goggles.
Have you tried one?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It offers nothing new that I haven't seen and tested with other devices, nor does it solve any of the issues the other devices had. They quickly become uncomfortable even during testing and they're ugly to look at. It's just overpriced, half-baked garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It offers nothing new that I haven't seen and tested with other devices, nor does it solve any of the issues the other devices had. They quickly become uncomfortable even during testing and they're ugly to look at. It's just overpriced, half-baked garbage.
With your attitude, I'm not surprised you were underwhelmed. Anything less than a HoloDeck wouldn't meet your standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, seeing as it's 3.5x-7x more expensive than their main competition, the Vision Pro needs to be at least 3.5x-7x better/interesting/powerful/etc or some combination. But it's not. It's worth $1250-1500 tops including the Apple brand name extra surcharge.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, seeing as it's 3.5x-7x more expensive than their main competition, the Vision Pro needs to be at least 3.5x-7x better/interesting/powerful/etc or some combination. But it's not. It's worth $1250-1500 tops including the Apple brand name extra surcharge.
So, when the Vision Air comes out at $1999, and the Vision SE comes out at $1299, that will be much more to your liking.
Re: (Score:2)
Never going to happen and never going to be that cheap - not with the same, or better, hardware anyway. Your delusions have no basis in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Never going to happen and never going to be that cheap - not with the same, or better, hardware anyway. Your delusions have no basis in reality.
To Wit:
MacBook Pro ~$1999; MacBook Air ~$999.
IPhone Pro ~$1200; iPhone SE ~$349.
You were saying?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, devices with significantly inferior quality and components compared to their pro versions. Did you miss where I said "same, or better, hardware"? Well, of course you did. Your ability to comprehend what you read is significantly degraded, which is obvious in all your replies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, devices with significantly inferior quality and components compared to their pro versions. Did you miss where I said "same, or better, hardware"? Well, of course you did. Your ability to comprehend what you read is significantly degraded, which is obvious in all your replies.
Actually, that is not always the case.
Sometimes, simply time, efficiency-improvements and/or economies-of-scale swamp out those other factors.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is always the case within their own respective lines.
Re: (Score:2)
I want my socks woven by artisanal crofters, not on soulless steam-powered looms!
Vote Green in 1812!
Re: (Score:2)
If only humans were comparable to socks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's good. Someone needs to mod this up.
Re: (Score:2)
If only humans were comparable to socks.
Dr. McCoy thought they were!
"It gives you confidence in surgery." (Score:2)
https://imageproxyb.ifunny.co/... [ifunny.co]
Exaggerate much? (Score:3)
"It eliminates human error and eliminates the guesswork"
No.
It reduces human error and reduces the guesswork.
We have created (Score:2)
We have created a virtual reality remote control surgeon based on Arthur C Clarke's 1971 story "A Meeting with Medusa, or What Can Go Wrong Using Virtual Reality Remote Control For Precision Operations".
apple later (Score:2)
Re: apple later (Score:2)
They offered in-app subscriptions to new phases of the operation and new skills.
Orientation to the OR (Score:5, Informative)
Judging from the few comments already posted, I thought it might be helpful to describe the workings in an operating room and how to interpret this article. Refer to the linked article at Techspot:
https://www.techspot.com/news/... [techspot.com]
An operating room and a case under general anesthesia typically has 5 staff - the surgeon; the surgical assistant who is indirect contact with the patient holding and exposing things for the surgeon, typically standing across from the surgeon on the other side of the patient; the scrub tech standing at the foot of the patient who passes instruments back and forth and prepares needed materials and technical equipment; the OR nurse who does not scrub, instead runs the room and makes sure supplies and activities are coordinated; and the anesthesiologist.
In the two pictures in the article, you can see the surgeon, the assistant, and the scrub tech. Only the scrub tech is wearing the goggles. One comment posted so far said:
Although the summary implies the headset was used inside the surgery room which immediately makes me wonder how they go a fully sterile headset. I can't believe the entire inside of the unit was decontaminated somehow before it was brought in.
Only things in direct contact with the patient and the small area of the "surgical field" are sterile. No need for other things to be. Notice that staff are wearing caps and masks. Personnel will wear their own eyeglasses, loupes for magnification. None of these are sterile. The VR headset need not be sterilized.
The article said:
During a recent operation to repair a patient's spine at the private Cromwell Hospital in London, a scrub nurse working alongside the surgeon used the Vision Pro to help prepare, keep track of the procedure, and choose the right tools ...
This was spine surgery which is usually done with magnification through small incisions which is why the microscope is there. This gives the surgeon and assistant direct clear view of the structures being operated on. But, this limited field of view makes it difficult, at times near impossible, for the scrub tech to see directly what is happening. This is a peculiarity of spine surgery and some others. For most operations though, the field and the anatomy are in plain view for all.
During an operation, the surgeon is asking for instruments, and the tech passes them. Most OR techs, especially those who have worked a long time in a certain specialty such as spine or with a particular surgeon, know the routines intimately well and can keep the operation flowing very smoothly without delays or hiccups. The assumption for using goggles here is that allowing the tech to see the field, same view as the surgeon, fed by video cameras on the scope, would make the procedure all the smoother and more efficient. The downside is that the tech is now blind to what else is happening in the room. Notice that the article fails to explicitly explain that the surgeon is not using the goggles which would be pointless or degrade the surgeon's performance.
We have lived through this twice before in the past 35 years - the introduction of endoscopy into general surgical practice starting circa 1990, and then the introduction of robotics circa 2015. The process has been similar and will likely be the same for the VR sets. Surgical endoscopy and robotics (which is endoscopy plus physical manipulators) have both been important. Laparoscopy has been revolutionary in a mostly good way. It has made many operations simpler and safer, and especially easier to recover from. It has even enabled operations that were understood in principle for many decades before but were hard to implement with open procedures. Robotics is still young. It is turning out to be a genuine advantage for select purposes, making surgery for those problems easier, safer, more effective. For some other procedures and problems, it is plus-minus valuable, and for most others it is pointless. The downside is that young surgeons getting hooked on robotics means they are forgetting how to do open surgery. The bottom line is that many patients and problems are getting better care than they could have 20-30 years ago, but for other problems, the care is much worse than it was 50 years ago, and getting worse as surgeons forget basic skills - but that is another story.
With each of these technologies, the pattern is the same. Part of the impetus to these technologies are the surgeons who are saying "This is hard, riddled with complications, we need something better, maybe the tech will help." Part of the impetus is the tech companies responding to surgeons needs. But, part of the impetus is companies with engineers saying "Gee whiz, look what we can make, let's try selling it to the surgeons." It takes one to two decades to sort out what the real uses and indications are, and where it will or will not work.
I have not heard much from other surgeons thinking that VR is anything they want or need, but certain uses seem potentially valuable. For example, robotic surgery is done with the surgeon sitting at "the console" in a corner of the room 10 feet from the OR table and patient, unscrubbed. Although generally quite safe, if some "oops" were to happen, such as (on an abdominal case) accidentally or unavoidably injuring the aorta or vena cava or portal vein, there might be only moments to intercede to get that controlled and save a life. A VR headset and "joystick" at the OR table in lieu of the remote console might add a layer of safety. But, this has to be balanced against head mobility and general field of view.
I think we can expect a certain amount of companies trying to sell such systems to surgeons, and of course, they will claim that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Some surgeons will check it out, but many or most will rightly not see any value and not bother. For those who might perceive an indication and check it out, some will conclude "that was dumb", and others might find a niche for meaningful use. If there is legitimate use, it will not be clear for 10 years minimum, and that presupposes that VR headsets are accepted into general public use for whatever reasons they might become popular (and so far the companies making and promoting them have had a rough go at finding a sustainable use or market, or even making an ergonomically sound and unobtrusive device, which will be a sine qua non for use by a surgeon).
To reiterate, the article simply describes the scrub tech using the headset to get a direct view of the "down in the hole" spine operation, conceptually a fair use, but it does not mention if it was even worthwhile. It is marketing hype, primarily from the company, perhaps also from the PR people at the hospital, but it is mostly meaningless and ho-hum as a newsworthy item.
Re: (Score:3)
Great explanation, thanks.
Waiting for this headline ... (Score:2)
[Someone] Repairs Apple Vision Pro Headset Using Apple's Vision Pro Headset
[ I expect the repair shop will get sucked into some sort of dimensional abyss ...]
Congrats to Apple (Score:2)
You've caught up to what Oculus achieved in 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've caught up to what Oculus achieved in 2016.
Man. I bet you’re a flat earther too.
Were they mechanics last week? (Score:2)
It offers nurses and technicians both holographic and touch-free access to the surgical setup and the procedural guides
I would want nurses and technicians to already KNOW the surgical setup and the procedure. Are they really shifted around that much from day to day?