Literature DB >> 12764682

[Comparative study of spatial imaging techniques in stereo-endoscopy].

U D A Müller-Richter1, A Limberger, P Weber, M Schilling.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compares the two-dimensional presentation of stereo-endoscopic video data with three-dimensional presentation using polarization glasses and three-dimensional presentation with an autostereoscopic display. The aim of this study was to evaluate possible advantages of the three display technologies.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-nine test persons untrained in endoscopy had to complete three endoscopic tasks with different levels of difficulty. Each test involved a new presentation method. Different measurements were noted such as speed of task completion, accuracy of task performance, and quantity of solved tasks. The data collected were statistically evaluated.
RESULTS: Neither sex, handedness, nor level of stereopsis had any statistically significant impact on the test results. The differences between the three presentation methods of stereo-endoscopic pictures were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Similar results were achieved with all three presentation methods. None of the presentation methods was significantly superior in the values measured. A final assessment of the possibilities of spatial endoscopy should await future technological developments in endoscopic devices (e.g., picture acquisition).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12764682     DOI: 10.1007/s10006-003-0471-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir        ISSN: 1432-9417


  30 in total

1.  Three-dimensional laparoscopy. Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy.

Authors:  M D Mueller; C Camartin; E Dreher; W Hänggi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Endoscopically assisted diagnosis and treatment of maxillofacial fractures.

Authors:  Y Ducic
Journal:  J Otolaryngol       Date:  2001-06

3.  Comparison between three-dimensional presentation of endoscopic procedures with polarization glasses and an autostereoscopic display.

Authors:  U D A Mueller-Richter; A Limberger; P Weber; W Spitzer; M Schilling
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-10-29       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  The effect of a second-generation 3D endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons.

Authors:  N Taffinder; S G Smith; J Huber; R C Russell; A Darzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  The influence of three-dimensional video systems on laparoscopic task performance.

Authors:  D B Jones; J D Brewer; N J Soper
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc       Date:  1996-06

6.  Comparison of direct vision and electronic two- and three-dimensional display systems on surgical task efficiency in endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  G Crosthwaite; T Chung; P Dunkley; S Shimi; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video system for the trained endoscopic surgeon and the beginner.

Authors:  A Pietrabissa; E Scarcello; A Carobbi; F Mosca
Journal:  Endosc Surg Allied Technol       Date:  1994-12

8.  3-D video techniques in endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  H Becker; A Melzer; M O Schurr; G Buess
Journal:  Endosc Surg Allied Technol       Date:  1993-02

9.  The use of maxillary sinus endoscopy in the diagnosis of orbital floor fractures.

Authors:  N A Sandler; R L Carrau; M W Ochs; R L Beatty
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 1.895

10.  Endoscopically assisted Le Fort I osteotomy.

Authors:  D Rohner; V Yeow; B Hammer
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.078

View more
  1 in total

1.  3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks.

Authors:  Pirmin Storz; Gerhard F Buess; Wolfgang Kunert; Andreas Kirschniak
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.