Video-based self-review: comparing Google Glass and GoPro technologies.
Paro JA1, Nazareli R, Gurjala A, Berger A, Lee GK.
Author information
1From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Professionals in a variety of specialties use video-based review as a method of constant self-evaluation. We believe critical self-reflection will allow a surgical trainee to identify methods for improvement throughout residency and beyond. We have used 2 new popular technologies to evaluate their role in accomplishing the previously mentioned objectives.
METHODS:
Our group investigated Google Glass and GoPro cameras. Medical students, residents, and faculty were invited to wear each of the devices during a scheduled operation. After the case, each participant was asked to comment on a number of features of the device including comfort, level of distraction/interference with operating, ease of video acquisition, and battery life. Software and hardware specifications were compiled and compared by the authors. A “proof-of-concept” was also performed using the video-conferencing abilities of Google Glass to perform a simulated flap check.
RESULTS:
The technical specifications of the 2 cameras favor GoPro over Google Glass. Glass records in 720p with 5-MP still shots, and the GoPro records in 1080p with 12-MP still shots. Our tests of battery life showed more than 2 hours of continuous video with GoPro, and less than 1 hour for Glass. Favorable features of Google Glass included comfort and relative ease of use; they could not comfortably wear loupes while operating, and would have preferred longer hands-free video recording. The GoPro was slightly more cumbersome and required a nonsterile team member to activate all pictures or video; however, loupes could be worn. Google Glass was successfully used in the hospital for a simulated flap check, with overall audio and video being transmitted–fine detail was lost, however.
CONCLUSIONS:
There are benefits and limitations to each of the devices tested. Google Glass is in its infancy and may gain a larger intraoperative role in the future. We plan to use Glass as a way for trainees to easily acquire intraoperative footage as a means to “review tape” and will use the GoPro to amass a video library of commonly performed operations.

Feasibility Study of Utilization of action camera, GoPro Hero 4, Google Glass and Panasonic HX-A100 in Spine Surgery.
Lee CK1, Kim Y, Lee N, Kim B, Kim D, Yi S.
Author information
1*Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea †Center for Bionics, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul, South Korea ‡Department of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN:
Study for feasibility of commercially available action cameras in recording video of spine.
OBJECTIVE:
Recent innovation of the wearable action camera with high definition video recording enables surgeons to use camera in the operation at ease without high costs. The purpose of this study is to compare the feasibility, safety, efficacy of commercially available action cameras in recording video of spine surgery.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:
There are early reports of medical professionals using Google Glass throughout the hospital, Panasonic HX-A100 action camera and GoPro. This study is the first report for spine surgery.
METHODS:
Three commercially available cameras were tested; GoPro Hero 4 Silver, Google Glass and Panasonic HX-A100 action camera. Usual spine surgery were selected for video recording; Posterior lumbar laminectomy and fusion. Three cameras were used by one surgeon and video was recorded throughout the operation. The comparison was made on the perspective of human factor, specification and video quality.
RESULTS:
The most convenient and lightweight device for wearing and holding throughout the long operation time was Google glass. Image quality; All devices except Google glass supported HD format and GoPro has unique 2.7K or 4K resolution. Quality of video resolution was best in GoPro. Field of view; GoPro can adjust point of interest, field of view according to the surgery. Narrow FOV option was the best for recording in GoPro to share the video clip. Google glass has potentials by using application programs. Connectivity such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth enables video streaming for audience, but only Google glass has two-way communication feature in device.
CONCLUSIONS:
Action cameras has the potential to improve patient safety, operator comfort, and procedure efficiency in the field of spinal surgery and the broadcasting a surgery with developing of the device and applied program in the future.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
N/A.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Jun 17. [Epub ahead of print]

Video Recording With a GoPro in Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery.
Vara AD1, Wu J1, Shin AY2, Sobol G1, Wiater B3.
Author information
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI.
2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI. Electronic address: wiater6@gmail.com.
Abstract
Video recordings of surgical procedures are an excellent tool for presentations, analyzing self-performance, illustrating publications, and educating surgeons and patients. Recording the surgeon’s perspective with high-resolution video in the operating room or clinic has become readily available and advances in software improve the ease of editing these videos. A GoPro HERO 4 Silver or Black was mounted on a head strap and worn over the surgical scrub cap, above the loupes of the operating surgeon. Five live surgical cases were recorded with the camera. The videos were uploaded to a computer and subsequently edited with iMovie or the GoPro software. The optimal settings for both the Silver and Black editions, when operating room lights are used, were determined to be a narrow view, 1080p, 60 frames per second (fps), spot meter on, protune on with auto white balance, exposure compensation at -0.5, and without a polarizing lens. When the operating room lights were not used, it was determined that the standard settings for a GoPro camera were ideal for positioning and editing (4K, 15 frames per second, spot meter and protune off). The GoPro HERO 4 provides high-quality, the surgeon perspective, and a cost-effective video recording of upper extremity surgical procedures. Challenges include finding the optimal settings for each surgical procedure and the length of recording due to battery life limitations.
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Video Capture of Plastic Surgery Procedures Using the GoPro HERO 3+.
Graves SN1, Shenaq DS1, Langerman AJ1, Song DH1.
Author information
1The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill.; and The University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Ill.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Significant improvements can be made in recoding surgical procedures, particularly in capturing high-quality video recordings from the surgeons’ point of view. This study examined the utility of the GoPro HERO 3+ Black Edition camera for high-definition, point-of-view recordings of plastic and reconstructive surgery.
METHODS:
The GoPro HERO 3+ Black Edition camera was head-mounted on the surgeon and oriented to the surgeon’s perspective using the GoPro App. The camera was used to record 4 cases: 2 fat graft procedures and 2 breast reconstructions. During cases 1-3, an assistant remotely controlled the GoPro via the GoPro App. For case 4 the GoPro was linked to a WiFi remote, and controlled by the surgeon.
RESULTS:
Camera settings for case 1 were as follows: 1080p video resolution; 48 fps; Protune mode on; wide field of view; 16:9 aspect ratio. The lighting contrast due to the overhead lights resulted in limited washout of the video image. Camera settings were adjusted for cases 2-4 to a narrow field of view, which enabled the camera’s automatic white balance to better compensate for bright lights focused on the surgical field. Cases 2-4 captured video sufficient for teaching or presentation purposes.
CONCLUSIONS:
The GoPro HERO 3+ Black Edition camera enables high-quality, cost-effective video recording of plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures. When set to a narrow field of view and automatic white balance, the camera is able to sufficiently compensate for the contrasting light environment of the operating room and capture high-resolution, detailed video.
PMID: 25750851 PMCID: PMC4350318 DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000242
[PubMed] Free PMC Article

Surgical video recording with a modified GoPro Hero 4 camera.
Lin LK1.
Author information
1Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, University of California, Davis Eye Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Surgical videography can provide analytical self-examination for the surgeon, teaching opportunities for trainees, and allow for surgical case presentations. This study examined if a modified GoPro Hero 4 camera with a 25 mm lens could prove to be a cost-effective method of surgical videography with enough detail for oculoplastic and strabismus surgery.
METHOD:
The stock lens mount and lens were removed from a GoPro Hero 4 camera, and was refitted with a Peau Productions SuperMount and 25 mm lens. The modified GoPro Hero 4 camera was then fixed to an overhead surgical light.
RESULTS:
Camera settings were set to 1080p video resolution. The 25 mm lens allowed for nine times the magnification as the GoPro stock lens. There was no noticeable video distortion. The entire cost was less than 600 USD.
CONCLUSION:
The adapted GoPro Hero 4 with a 25 mm lens allows for high-definition, cost-effective, portable video capture of oculoplastic and strabismus surgery. The 25 mm lens allows for detailed videography that can enhance surgical teaching and self-examination.

Clin Ophthalmol. 2016 Jan 13;10:117-9. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S95666. eCollection 2016.

A blinded assessment of video quality in wearable technology for telementoring in open surgery: the Google Glass experience.
Hashimoto DA1, Phitayakorn R2, Fernandez-del Castillo C2, Meireles O2.
Author information
1Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, GRB425, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. dahashimoto@partners.org.
2Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, GRB425, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The goal of telementoring is to recreate face-to-face encounters with a digital presence. Open-surgery telementoring is limited by lack of surgeon’s point-of-view cameras. Google Glass is a wearable computer that looks like a pair of glasses but is equipped with wireless connectivity, a camera, and viewing screen for video conferencing. This study aimed to assess the safety of using Google Glass by assessing the video quality of a telementoring session.
METHODS:
Thirty-four (n = 34) surgeons at a single institution were surveyed and blindly compared via video captured with Google Glass versus an Apple iPhone 5 during the open cholecystectomy portion of a Whipple. Surgeons were asked to evaluate the quality of the video and its adequacy for safe use in telementoring.
RESULTS:
Thirty-four of 107 invited surgical attendings (32%) responded to the anonymous survey. A total of 50% rated the Google Glass video as fair with the other 50% rating it as bad to poor. A total of 52.9% of respondents rated the Apple iPhone video as good. A significantly greater proportion of respondents felt Google Glass video quality was inadequate for telementoring versus the Apple iPhone’s (82.4 vs 26.5%, p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.924 (95% CI 0.660-0.999, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION:
While Google Glass provides a great breadth of functionality as a wearable device with two-way communication capabilities, current hardware limitations prevent its use as a telementoring device in surgery as the video quality is inadequate for safe telementoring. As the device is still in initial phases of development, future iterations or competitor devices may provide a better telementoring application for wearable devices.

Surg Endosc. 2016 Jan;30(1):372-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4178-x. Epub 2015 Apr 1.

The Feasibility and Acceptability of Google Glass for Teletoxicology Consults.
Chai PR1, Babu KM, Boyer EW.
Author information
1Division of Medical Toxicology, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA, peter.chai@umassmemorial.org.
Abstract
Teletoxicology offers the potential for toxicologists to assist in providing medical care at remote locations, via remote, interactive augmented audiovisual technology. This study examined the feasibility of using Google Glass, a head-mounted device that incorporates a webcam, viewing prism, and wireless connectivity, to assess the poisoned patient by a medical toxicology consult staff. Emergency medicine residents (resident toxicology consultants) rotating on the toxicology service wore Glass during bedside evaluation of poisoned patients; Glass transmitted real-time video of patients’ physical examination findings to toxicology fellows and attendings (supervisory consultants), who reviewed these findings. We evaluated the usability (e.g., quality of connectivity and video feeds) of Glass by supervisory consultants, as well as attitudes towards use of Glass. Resident toxicology consultants and supervisory consultants completed 18 consults through Glass. Toxicologists viewing the video stream found the quality of audio and visual transmission usable in 89 % of cases. Toxicologists reported their management of the patient changed after viewing the patient through Glass in 56 % of cases. Based on findings obtained through Glass, toxicologists recommended specific antidotes in six cases. Head-mounted devices like Google Glass may be effective tools for real-time teletoxicology consultation.

J Med Toxicol. 2015 Sep;11(3):283-7. doi: 10.1007/s13181-015-0495-7.

Surgical Vision: Google Glass and Surgery.
Chang JY1, Tsui LY1, Yeung KS1, Yip SW1, Leung GK2.
Author information
1The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong.
2The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong gilberto@hku.hk.
Abstract
Google Glass is, in essence, a smartphone in the form of a pair of spectacles. It has a display system, a bone conduction “speaker,” video camera, and connectivity via WiFi or Bluetooth technologies. It can also be controlled by voice command. Seizing Google Glass’ capabilities as windows of opportunity, surgeons have been the first group of doctors trying to incorporate the technology into their daily practices. Experiences from different groups have demonstrated Google Glass’ potential in improving perioperative care, intraoperative communication and documentation, surgical outcome as well as surgical training. On the other hand, the device has technical limitations, notably suboptimal image qualities and a short battery life. Its operational functions also bring forth concerns on the protection of patient privacy. Nonetheless, the technological advances that this device embodies hold promises in surgical innovations. Further studies are required, and surgeons should explore, investigate, and embrace similar technologies with keen and informed anticipation.
© The Author(s) 2016.

Surg Innov. 2016 Aug;23(4):422-6. doi: 10.1177/1553350616646477. Epub 2016 May 3.