Literature DB >> 15067283

An experimental comparison of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional endoscopic systems in a model.

Marc N Thomsen1, Robert D Lang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compares the effect of new electronic display systems using endoscopic instruments on intrathoracal maneuvering and targeting under standardized conditions. A 2-dimensional (2-D) vision system is compared with 2 stereoscopic 3-dimensional (3-D) video technologies, called "shutter glasses," and the head-mounted display (HMD) system.
METHODS: Fifteen participants with minor experience (<50 operations = beginners) and 15 participants with endoscopic experience (advanced) had to hit 12 electronically conducted wires in a thoracic spine model using 3 different systems (2-D video, 3-D shutter glasses, and 3-D HMD). The sequence was randomly alternated for each participant and repeated 3 times to eliminate the influence of training and concentration.
RESULTS: The execution time with the 2-D system (mean time, 95.5 seconds) was shorter than with the HMD (mean time, 107 seconds; P =.001) or the Shutter system (mean time, 101 seconds; P =.002). No significant difference was seen between the 3-D systems (P =.153). The overall look of the missed targets showed statistically no difference between the 3 systems (P =.191). None of the 3 systems showed a statistically significant correlation between execution time and number of missed targets. Regarding the total number of missed targets for advanced and beginner groups, the head-mounted display system in the advanced group showed higher but not statistically significantly higher accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the 3-D systems tested for endoscopic surgery did not accelerate the execution speed, the HMD system seems to increase the accuracy for endoscopically experienced surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15067283     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2004.01.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  11 in total

1.  [Mechatronic in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. First experiences with the daVinci Telemanipulatory System].

Authors:  G Strauss; D Winkler; S Jacobs; C Trantakis; A Dietz; F Bootz; J Meixensberger; V Falk
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  Comparison of a supplemental wide field of view versus a single field of view with zoom on performance in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Alex Cao; R Darin Ellis; Elizabeth D Klein; Gregory W Auner; Michael D Klein; Abhilash K Pandya
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method.

Authors:  O J Wagner; M Hagen; A Kurmann; S Horgan; D Candinas; S A Vorburger
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  The effect of CyberDome, a novel 3-dimensional dome-shaped display system, on laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Kenoki Ohuchida; Hajime Kenmotsu; Atsuyuki Yamamoto; Kazuya Sawada; Takehito Hayami; Kenichi Morooka; Hiroshi Hoshino; Munenori Uemura; Kozo Konishi; Daisuke Yoshida; Takashi Maeda; Satoshi Ieiri; Kazuo Tanoue; Masao Tanaka; Makoto Hashizume
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  An assessment of the new generation three-dimensional high definition laparoscopic vision system on surgical skills: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Taner A Usta; Aysel Ozkaynak; Ebru Kovalak; Erdinc Ergul; M Murat Naki; Erdal Kaya
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018.

Authors:  Alberto Arezzo; Nereo Vettoretto; Nader K Francis; Marco Augusto Bonino; Nathan J Curtis; Daniele Amparore; Simone Arolfo; Manuel Barberio; Luigi Boni; Ronit Brodie; Nicole Bouvy; Elisa Cassinotti; Thomas Carus; Enrico Checcucci; Petra Custers; Michele Diana; Marilou Jansen; Joris Jaspers; Gadi Marom; Kota Momose; Beat P Müller-Stich; Kyokazu Nakajima; Felix Nickel; Silvana Perretta; Francesco Porpiglia; Francisco Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Marlies Schijven; Gianfranco Silecchia; Roberto Passera; Yoav Mintz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: even well-experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D.

Authors:  D Wilhelm; S Reiser; N Kohn; M Witte; U Leiner; L Mühlbach; D Ruschin; W Reiner; H Feussner
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Comparison of optical see-through head-mounted displays for surgical interventions with object-anchored 2D-display.

Authors:  Long Qian; Alexander Barthel; Alex Johnson; Greg Osgood; Peter Kazanzides; Nassir Navab; Bernhard Fuerst
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-03-25       Impact factor: 2.924

9.  Impact of three-dimensional vision in laparoscopic training.

Authors:  Konstantinos Votanopoulos; F Charles Brunicardi; John Thornby; Charles F Bellows
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Performance of basic manipulation and intracorporeal suturing tasks in a robotic surgical system: single- versus dual-monitor views.

Authors:  Rachit D Shah; Alex Cao; Lavie Golenberg; R Darin Ellis; Gregory W Auner; Abhilash K Pandya; Michael D Klein
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-07-12       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.