Which is better for surgical monitors: physical plastic buttons or capacitive touch controls?

In the middle of a critical procedure, you try adjusting the monitor brightness but can’t tell if your touch registered. The wrong interface choice forces you to shift focus away from the patient, disrupting your concentration at a crucial moment.

For surgical monitors, physical buttons are generally better than capacitive touch controls in most operating room scenarios. Physical buttons provide essential tactile feedback during procedures, work reliably with gloves, and function when wet. Touch interfaces offer easier cleaning and modern aesthetics but can fail in critical moments when moisture or multiple gloves are present.

The human-machine interface¹ is a critical yet often overlooked aspect of surgical equipment design. In the high-stakes environment of an operating room, the ability to adjust display settings quickly and confidently can impact procedural workflow and even patient outcomes. As monitor manufacturers increasingly move toward sleek, consumer-inspired designs, the debate between traditional physical buttons and modern capacitive touch interfaces² has intensified. While touch interfaces have clear advantages in consumer products, their suitability for the unique demands of surgical environments requires careful consideration. Surgical staff work under pressure, often with limited visual attention to spare for equipment controls, and frequently wear multiple layers of gloves. These conditions create distinct requirements for interface design that differ significantly from consumer or even general medical settings. This article examines the practical implications of both interface types and provides guidance for making an informed choice based on the specific needs of surgical environments³.

Why do some surgeons prefer physical buttons over touch controls?

You’re considering a new monitor with an elegant touch interface, but your surgical staff seems reluctant. You wonder why they would prefer outdated button technology when touch controls are clearly the modern option.

Surgeons often prefer physical buttons because they provide immediate tactile feedback, confirming successful activation without looking away from the surgical field. This allows for "blind operation" during critical procedures. Physical buttons also offer consistent activation points that develop muscle memory, reducing cognitive load during complex surgeries.

The preference for physical buttons⁴ among surgical professionals stems from the unique cognitive demands⁵ of the operating room environment. During procedures, a surgeon’s visual attention is primarily—often exclusively—focused on the surgical field or the endoscopic image. Any diversion of attention to adjust display settings represents a potential disruption to their workflow and concentration. Physical buttons address this challenge through proprioception—the body’s ability to sense position and movement without visual feedback. When pressing a physical button, the tactile response—the distinct feeling of resistance followed by the "click" of activation—provides immediate confirmation that the input was registered. This allows surgeons to make adjustments without breaking visual concentration on the patient. The MS270P surgical monitor incorporates strategically positioned physical buttons along the bottom edge, slightly angled for ergonomic access. Each button has a distinct size and shape, allowing users to distinguish between functions by touch alone. Additionally, the spacing between buttons is carefully calculated to prevent accidental activation of adjacent controls. This thoughtful design supports the development of muscle memory, where frequent users can instinctively reach for the correct button without conscious thought—similar to how experienced drivers can adjust vehicle controls without looking.

Comparative User Experience: Buttons vs. Touch Controls

Are capacitive touch panels reliable in gloved or wet conditions?

You’ve noticed the sleek glass interfaces on newer equipment and wonder if these modern designs will actually function reliably in your operating room, where staff wear multiple layers of gloves and surfaces frequently get wet.

Capacitive touch panels have significant reliability issues in surgical environments. Standard capacitive technology struggles to detect input through multiple surgical gloves, particularly thicker orthopedic or cut-resistant varieties. Performance degrades further when moisture, blood, or saline is present on gloves or the panel surface, leading to missed inputs during critical moments.

Capacitive touch technology, while ubiquitous in consumer electronics, faces substantial challenges in surgical settings due to its fundamental operating principle. Unlike resistive touch screens that respond to physical pressure, capacitive systems detect the slight electrical conductivity of the human body. This creates inherent limitations in medical environments. Standard surgical protocol often requires double-gloving⁶, with some specialties using even thicker protective barriers. Each layer of glove material creates distance between the user’s conductive finger and the touch surface, reducing the electrical field interaction that triggers touch registration. This problem compounds in surgical specialties requiring thicker gloves, such as orthopedics or cardiothoracic surgery. Moisture presents another significant challenge. Operating rooms are inherently wet environments, with irrigation fluids, body fluids, and cleaning solutions frequently contacting equipment surfaces. When moisture accumulates on a capacitive panel, it can create false inputs or completely prevent legitimate touches from registering. The MS321PB monitor addresses these concerns by incorporating physical buttons for critical functions while using capacitive touch only for secondary menu navigation. Each button is designed with a protective membrane that maintains tactile feedback while preventing liquid ingress, ensuring reliable operation regardless of glove type or environmental conditions.

How do cleaning and infection control differ between the two designs?

You’re concerned about infection control in your surgical department and wonder whether button or touch interfaces would be easier to keep truly clean between procedures.

Touch interfaces generally offer superior infection control with their flat, sealed glass surfaces that can be thoroughly disinfected without chemical degradation. Physical buttons create seams and crevices where contaminants can accumulate, though modern medical-grade buttons use silicone covers and sealed designs specifically engineered for hospital-grade disinfectants.

Infection control represents one of the clearest advantages of capacitive touch interfaces⁷ in medical environments. Their completely flat, sealed glass surfaces eliminate the physical gaps and seams that can harbor bacteria and other pathogens. This design allows for quick and thorough disinfection between procedures—a simple wipe with an appropriate disinfectant is usually sufficient to sanitize the entire surface. Additionally, the glass materials used in capacitive displays are highly resistant to the aggressive chemicals found in hospital-grade disinfectants, maintaining their integrity through thousands of cleaning cycles without degradation. Physical buttons, by their mechanical nature, introduce potential infection control⁸ challenges. Traditional button designs create small spaces around their edges where organic material can accumulate and become difficult to remove. However, modern medical-grade button interfaces have evolved significantly to address these concerns. The MS192SA monitor utilizes a specialized silicone overlay that completely seals the mechanical components beneath while still providing tactile feedback. This creates a continuous surface that prevents fluid ingress while resisting the harsh disinfectants used in medical settings. The materials are specifically chosen to withstand thousands of cleaning cycles without showing signs of degradation such as cracking, discoloration, or increased porosity. Some advanced designs even incorporate antimicrobial materials that actively inhibit bacterial growth on the button surfaces between cleanings.

Is user fatigue a factor when choosing between buttons and touchscreens?

During particularly long procedures, you’ve noticed staff seeming frustrated when making repeated monitor adjustments. You wonder if the interface type contributes to this frustration and fatigue.

Yes, user fatigue differs significantly between interface types. Physical buttons require less precision and provide definitive feedback, reducing cognitive and physical strain during extended procedures. Touch interfaces demand more precise finger placement and concentration, causing measurable fatigue during repeated adjustments—particularly problematic during long surgeries when surgeon fatigue is already a concern.

The cognitive and physical demands of different interface types become increasingly relevant during lengthy surgical procedures, where surgeon fatigue⁹ is already a significant concern. Physical buttons offer several advantages that reduce the cognitive load required for device interaction. The definitive activation point of a physical button—the moment when the pressure threshold is reached and the button "clicks"—provides clear feedback that no further attention is required. This certainty allows surgeons to immediately refocus on the procedure. In contrast, capacitive touch interfaces often create what ergonomists call "confirmation anxiety¹⁰"—the need to visually verify that an input was registered, particularly when the system lacks clear tactile feedback. This may seem minor, but when multiplied across dozens or hundreds of interactions, it creates measurable mental fatigue. From a physical perspective, touch interfaces require greater precision in finger placement and often more deliberate, controlled movements. During long procedures when hand fatigue or tremors may develop, this precision requirement can become frustrating. The MS247SA monitor addresses this concern with an innovative hybrid approach. Primary functions like power, input selection, and brightness utilize large, widely-spaced physical buttons that can be easily located by touch, while advanced settings that are rarely adjusted during procedures use a touch interface accessed through a menu system. This design optimizes the interface for different usage patterns, reducing fatigue during critical phases of surgery.

How does Reshin balance these choices in its surgical monitor designs?

You’re evaluating monitor options and notice different manufacturers take widely varying approaches to interface design. You wonder how to determine which approach best suits your facility’s specific needs.

Reshin balances interface design through careful analysis of surgical workflows and user feedback. We implement hybrid solutions—using physical buttons for critical, frequent adjustments performed during procedures, while incorporating touch interfaces for advanced settings typically adjusted before surgery begins. Our customizable control panels also allow facilities to optimize button placement for their specific specialties.

Our approach to interface design begins with extensive observation of actual surgical workflows across different specialties. This research has revealed distinct patterns in how and when surgical staff interact with monitors during procedures. We’ve identified that certain functions—particularly brightness adjustment, input source selection, and power controls—are frequently accessed during critical phases of surgery when visual attention cannot be diverted from the patient. For these functions, we prioritize physical buttons with distinct tactile profiles that can be easily identified by touch alone. The MS321PC exemplifies this philosophy with its front-facing control panel featuring raised, backlit buttons with distinct shapes corresponding to their functions. Each button provides clear tactile feedback¹¹ with a definitive activation point, confirming successful input without requiring visual confirmation. For less frequently accessed functions like color temperature adjustments, aspect ratio changes, or advanced settings configuration, we implement touch-based interfaces¹² accessible through a menu system. These settings are typically adjusted during setup or between procedures when full attention can be devoted to the interface. The touch interface provides an intuitive, modern experience for these complex adjustments while keeping the physical control panel uncluttered. This hybrid approach delivers the best of both worlds—the reliability and tactile feedback of physical buttons for critical functions, combined with the flexibility and clean aesthetics of touch interfaces for advanced settings. Additionally, we recognize that different surgical specialties have varying needs, which is why many of our models offer customizable button functions that can be programmed to match the specific requirements of each department.

Optimal Interface Selection Guide by Surgical Context

Conclusion

Physical buttons generally offer better reliability, tactile feedback, and gloved operation for surgical monitors, while capacitive touch provides easier cleaning and modern aesthetics. The optimal choice depends on your specific surgical environment, with hybrid designs offering the best balance for most operating rooms. To explore surgical monitors tailored to your OR’s control needs, contact Reshin at martin@reshinmonitors.com.