Advertisement

The Development of an Innovative Corneal Biopsy Tool: A Usability Comparison of Four Ergonomic Handle Prototypes

Conference paper
  • 640 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 779)

Abstract

Keratitis, or an inflammation of the cornea, is a common eye disease in which a biopsy of the cornea is required to determine its underlying cause. Currently, no standardized tool is available for this purpose and corneal scrapings are performed with a scalpel or wide needle, frequently with inconclusive results as too little material is removed for fear of penetration. Previous research resulted in a new cutting principle, and is used in this follow-up study. The aim of this research is to optimize the usability of the cutting principle through a user evaluation (N = 18) of four ergonomic handle prototypes. The results of this study suggest that a forceps-shaped handle provides improved usability, and propose design guidelines for further optimization.

Keywords

Corneal biopsy Keratitis Hand tool ergonomics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is the result of a collaborative research between the Department of Ophthalmology (UZA), Centre for Cell Therapy and Regenerative Medicine (Ophthalmology/Vaxinfectio – UA/UZA) and the Department of Product Development (UA) together with the industrial partner D.O.R.C. Additionally, we want to acknowledge all students contributing to this publication within the course of Applied Research Methods at Product Development, University of Antwerp.

References

  1. 1.
    Streilein, J.W., Dana, M.R., Ksander, B.R.: Immunity causing blindness: five different paths to herpes stromal keratitis. Immunol. Today 18(9), 443–449 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu, M.C.Z., Höfling-Lima, A.L., Furtado, G.H.C., Yu, M.C.Z., Höfling-Lima, A.L., Furtado, G.H.C.: Microbiological and epidemiological study of infectious keratitis in children and adolescents. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 79(5), 289–293 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veelaert, L., et al.: Usefulness of skin punch tools for corneal biopsy, vol. 590 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gorski, M., Genis, A., Yushvayev, S., Awwad, A., Lazzaro, D.R.: Seasonal variation in the presentation of infectious keratitis. Eye Contact Lens Sci. Clin. Pract. 42(5), 295–297 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh, D., Verma, A.: Fungal Keratitis: Background, Pathophysiology, Epidemiology. MedScape (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibrahim, Y., Boase, D., Cree, I.: Incidence of infectious corneal ulcers, portsmouth study, UK. J. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 3(5) (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Townsend, N., Dunbar, M.T.: The right approach. the diagnosis and the treatment rules for infectious cornea ulcers. Optom. Manag. 49, 22, 25, 42 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daschner, F.: Leitsätze der Antibiotikatherapie. In: Antibiotika am Krankenbett, pp. 15–18. Springer Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wenzel, M., Schrage, N.F.: Diagnostik bei Hornhauterkrankungen. In: Kampik, A., Grehn, F, pp. 37–50 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Callegan, M.C., O’Callaghan, R.J., Hill, J.M.: Pharmacokinetic considerations in the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 27(2), 129–149 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedlaender, M.H.: Corneal biopsy. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 28(2), 101–102 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newton, C., Moore, M.B., Kaufman, H.E.: Corneal biopsy in chronic keratitis. Arch. Ophthalmol. 105(4), 577–578, April 1987. (Chicago, Ill. 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whitehouse, G., Reid, K., Hudson, B., Lennox, V.A., Lawless, M.A.: Corneal biopsy in microbial keratitis. Aust. N. Z. J. Ophthalmol. 19(3), 193–196 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berguer, R., Forkey, D.L., Smith, W.D.: Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg. Endosc. 13(5), 466–468 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berguer, R.: Surgery and ergonomics. Arch. Surg. 134(9), 1011–1016 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berguer, R.: The application of ergonomics in the work environment of general surgeons. Rev. Environ. Health 12(2), 99–106 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matern, U., Eichenlaub, M., Waller, P., Rückauer, K.D.: MIS instruments: an experimental comparison of various ergonomic handles and their design. Surg. Endosc. 13(8), 756–762 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Veelen, M.A., Meijer, D.W.: Ergonomics and design of laparoscopic instruments: results of a survey among laparoscopic surgeons. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 9(6), 481–489 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Veelen, M.A., Meijer, D.W., Goossens, R.H.M., Snijders, C.J., Jakimowicz, J.J.: Improved usability of a new handle design for laparoscopic dissection forceps. Surg. Endosc. Other Interv. Tech. 16(1), 201–207 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berguer, R., Gerber, S., Kilpatrick, G., Beckley, D.: An ergonomic comparison of in-line vs pistol-grip handle configuration in a laparoscopic grasper. Surg. Endosc. 12(6), 805–808 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matern, U., Waller, P.: Instruments for minimally invasive surgery: new technology principles of ergonomic handles, pp. 174–182 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Daams, B.J.: Productergonomie. Ontwerpen voor nut, gebruik en beleving. Deel 2a. Uitgeverij Undesigning (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sancibrian, R., Gutierrez-Diez, M.C., Torre-Ferrero, C., Benito-Gonzalez, M.A., Redondo-Figuero, C., Manuel-Palazuelos, J.C.: Design and evaluation of a new ergonomic handle for instruments in minimally invasive surgery. J. Surg. Res. 188(1), 88–99 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanders, M.S., McCormick, E.J.: Human Factors in Engineering and Design (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Product Development, Faculty of Design SciencesUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Visual Optics and Visual RehabilitationUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations