Literature DB >> 17031749

Optimum view distance for laparoscopic surgery.

G El Shallaly1, A Cuschieri.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Proper visualization of the surgical field without fatigue is essential in laparoscopic surgery and reduces the risk of iatrogenic injuries. One of the important factors influencing visualization is the viewing distance between the surgeon and the monitor. This was the subject of the current investigation.
METHODS: For this study, 14 surgeons participated in experiments designed to determine two working distances from a standard 34-cm (14 in. diagonal) cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor: (a) the maximum view distance permitting small prints of a near vision chart to be identified clearly by sight, (b) and the minimum view distance (of a standard resolution chart) just short of flicker, image degradation, or both. The range of the monitor optimal working distance for laparoscopic surgery was extrapolated from these data sets.
RESULTS: The maximum view distance allowing identification of detail averaged 221 cm (range, 166-302 cm). The mean minimal view distance short of flicker/image degradation was 136 cm (range, 102-168 cm). The coefficient of variation for the two view distances was almost identical (18% vs 17%, respectively), and a frequency histogram confirmed the normality of the two data sets. Thus, for most surgeons, the extrapolated monitor view distances for laparoscopic surgery using a 14-in. diagonal (34-cm) monitor range from 139 to 303 cm (57-121 in.) for maximal distance viewing and from 90 to 182 cm (36-73 in.) for close-up viewing (i.e., a monitor optimal working distance ranging from 90 to 303 cm (36-121 in.).
CONCLUSIONS: For most surgeons operating from a 14-in. diagonal CRT monitor, both the maximal and minimal (close-up) view distances are individually variable, but the surgeon should never be farther than 3 m (10 ft) or less than 0.9 m (3 ft) from the monitor. However, within limits, the maximal view distance increases with increasing monitor size. The limit for close-up distance is 0.9 m, irrespective of monitor size.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17031749     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-0162-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  11 in total

1.  Visual Displays and Visual Perception in Minimal Access Surgery.

Authors: 
Journal:  Semin Laparosc Surg       Date:  1995-09

2.  Variation of accommodation in vertical directions of gaze.

Authors:  P H RIPPLE
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1952-11       Impact factor: 5.258

3.  Eyestrain in VDU users: viewing distance and the resting position of ocular muscles.

Authors:  W Jaschinski-Kruza
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 2.888

4.  Preferred declination of the line of sight.

Authors:  S G Hill; K H Kroemer
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 2.888

5.  Visual strain during VDU work: the effect of viewing distance and dark focus.

Authors:  W Jaschinski-Kruza
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 2.778

6.  Near work, visual fatigue, and variations of oculomotor tonus.

Authors:  D A Owens; K Wolf-Kelly
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Effects of lensed-indirect and parabolic lighting on the satisfaction, visual health, and productivity of office workers.

Authors:  A Hedge; W R Sims; F D Becker
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  VDT workstation design: preferred settings and their effects.

Authors:  E Grandjean; W Hünting; M Pidermann
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 2.888

9.  Influence of direction of view, target-to-endoscope distance and manipulation angle on endoscopic knot tying.

Authors:  G B Hanna; S Shimi; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  The relation of vergence effort to reports of visual fatigue following prolonged near work.

Authors:  R A Tyrrell; H W Leibowitz
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 2.888

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Epistemology of visual imaging in endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-03-16       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Augmented reality during parotid surgery: real-life evaluation of voice control of a head mounted display.

Authors:  Claudia Scherl; David Männle; Nicole Rotter; Jürgen Hesser; Jan Stallkamp; Tobias Balkenhol; Lena Huber; Benedikt Kramer; Anne Lammert; Annette Affolter
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 3.236

3.  Monitor height ergonomics: A comparison of operating room video display terminals.

Authors:  Gregory I Kelts; Kevin C McMains; Phillip G Chen; Erik K Weitzel
Journal:  Allergy Rhinol (Providence)       Date:  2015-01

4.  A Comparative Study of Generic Visual Components of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Images.

Authors:  Michael El Boghdady; Gobinath Ramakrishnan; Benjie Tang; Afshin Alijani
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Effectiveness of the HoloLens mixed-reality headset in minimally invasive surgery: a simulation-based feasibility study.

Authors:  Hasaneen Fathy Al Janabi; Abdullatif Aydin; Sharanya Palaneer; Nicola Macchione; Ahmed Al-Jabir; Muhammad Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta; Kamran Ahmed
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 4.584

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.