Wearable video documentation devices in anatomic pathology autopsies

Abstract

Introduction In the past decade, many wearable devices for video documentation have been released on the free market. However, they have seldom been implemented into autopsy practice. Aim This research aimed to compare several different types of video recording devices and compare their feasibility, both in regards to their form factor and video quality, in everyday autopsy practice. Materials and Methods Five separate wearable devices for video documentation devices were used in the standard autopsy practice of a single pathologist – two box-style sports cameras - Kitvision Escape KVESCAPE4KW (Kondor, Hapton, Lancashire, England) and GoPro Hero 7 Silver (San Mateo, California, USA), a pair of camera glasses – NCS0002 (Spardar Smart Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China), a pair of smart glasses – Cloud-I II (Topsky Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China), and Google Glass – XE V2 (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, USA). The five devices were compared both for their pros and cons and for their feasibility in autopsy and educational practice. Results Only the box-style sports cameras and Google Glass provided sufficient video resolution on the initial test to be considered efficient aids. A total of sixty-five full autopsies were documented, using the box-style sports cameras and Google Glass, with ten autopsies being recorded simultaneously with the two devices. Flaws present in both types of recording devices were in their relatively short battery life and the limitation of data that could be stored. Conclusion Video documentation of autopsies using new generation wearable devices is a feasible option for both individual autopsy cases and educational purposes of both students and young pathologists. The different designs are susceptible to individual preferences, however, box-style sports cameras seem to be best suited for autopsy practices.