What Do We Really Need? Visions of an Ideal Human–Machine Interface for NOTES Mechatronic Support Systems From the View of Surgeons, Gastroenterologists, and Medical Engineers

Abstract

Purpose. To investigate why natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has not yet become widely accepted and to prove whether the main reason is still the lack of appropriate platforms due to the deficiency of applicable interfaces. Methods. To assess expectations of a suitable interface design, we performed a survey on human–machine interfaces for NOTES mechatronic support systems among surgeons, gastroenterologists, and medical engineers. Of 120 distributed questionnaires, each consisting of 14 distinct questions, 100 (83%) were eligible for analysis. Results. A mechatronic platform for NOTES was considered “important” by 71% of surgeons, 83% of gastroenterologist,s and 56% of medical engineers. “Intuitivity” and “simple to use” were the most favored aspects (33% to 51%). Haptic feedback was considered “important” by 70% of participants. In all, 53% of surgeons, 50% of gastroenterologists, and 33% of medical engineers already had experience with NOTES platforms or other surgical robots; however, current interfaces only met expectations in just more than 50%. Whereas surgeons did not favor a certain working posture, gastroenterologists and medical engineers preferred a sitting position. Three-dimensional visualization was generally considered “nice to have” (67% to 72%); however, for 26% of surgeons, 17% of gastroenterologists, and 7% of medical engineers it did not matter ( P = 0.018). Conclusion. Requests and expectations of human–machine interfaces for NOTES seem to be generally similar for surgeons, gastroenterologist, and medical engineers. Consensus exists on the importance of developing interfaces that should be both intuitive and simple to use, are similar to preexisting familiar instruments, and exceed current available systems.