INTRODUCTION: To assess the effectiveness of the Google GLASS as a vital signs monitor in a surgical setting and identify potential uses. METHODS: This prospective, observational and comparative study recruited novice (n = 24), intermediate (n = 8) and expert urologists (n = 5). All candidates performed a procedure on the GreenLight Simulator within a simulated setting using a standard vital signs monitor and then the Google GLASS. The time taken to respond to abnormal vital signs during both sessions was recorded. A quantitative survey was used to assess the usability and acceptability of the Google GLASS surgery. RESULTS: The majority (84%) of participants responded quicker to abnormal signs with the Google GLASS compared to a standard monitor (p = 0.0267). The average simulation score during a standard-monitor and GLASS-session scored to be statistically insignificant (p = 0.253). All parameters of simulation were also similar in both sessions including average sweep speed (p = 0.594), average blood loss (p = 0.761) and average grams vaporised (p = 0.102). DISCUSSION: Surgical performance between both sessions was similar and not hampered by the use of Google GLASS. Furthermore, 81% of candidates stated the GLASS was comfortable to wear during the procedure. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that head-mounted displays such as the Google GLASS are potentially useful in surgery to aid patient care without hampering the surgeons view. It is hoped that the innovation and evolution of these devices triggers the potential future application of such devices within the medical field.