Literature DB >> 17972133

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

Alex Cao1, R Darin Ellis, Elizabeth D Klein, Gregory W Auner, Michael D Klein, Abhilash K Pandya.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The limited space and high magnification involved in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can cause surgeons to lose sight of an instrument while performing tasks such as suturing and knot-tying. A current strategy employed to locate the instrument is zooming out and in with the endoscope, which can be a time-intensive and iterative task. This study investigates the use of a supplemental wide field of view (FOV) via a second endoscope for locating an instrument outside the FOV in a MIS setting.
METHODS: Ten surgically naïve subjects performed a simple aimed movement task with either hand (dominant or nondominant) under two display conditions: (1) conventional single monitor with zoom, and (2) supplemental wide FOV monitor with no zoom. The task emulated the need to locate an instrument outside the surgeon's FOV and return it to a home position.
RESULTS: The supplemental wide FOV produced significantly faster times [F(3,716) = 173.2, p < 0.001)] compared to a single monitor. The task was accomplished most quickly with the dual monitor with the dominant hand, followed by dual monitor with nondominant hand followed by a single monitor with either hand. There were also significantly fewer errors (t = 3.734, df = 9, p = 0.005) with the supplemental wide FOV. None of the subjects were slower with the dual monitor, and all but one had fewer errors. The variance for both task times and errors were also significantly smaller (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively) with the supplemental wide FOV indicating that subjects performed with increased reliability.
CONCLUSION: The supplemental wide FOV gave the subjects the ability to see their instrument at all times providing a more efficient display than zooming out and in. This enabled faster times and fewer errors while allowing the user to perform the task with more consistency.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17972133     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9627-8

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


  18 in total

1.  Influence of the optical axis-to-target view angle on endoscopic task performance.

Authors:  G B Hanna; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A comparative experimental study evaluating the performance of surgical robots aesop and endosista.

Authors:  Y Yavuz; B Ystgaard; E Skogvoll; R Mårvik
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 1.719

3.  Comparison of task performance of the camera-holder robots EndoAssist and Aesop.

Authors:  Pedro Ballester Nebot; Yatin Jain; Kevin Haylett; Robert Stone; Rory McCloy
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.719

4.  Surgeon workload and motion efficiency with robot and human laparoscopic camera control.

Authors:  G V Kondraske; E C Hamilton; D J Scott; C A Fischer; S T Tesfay; R Taneja; R J Brown; D B Jones
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-07-08       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Comparison of conventional and gaze-down imaging in laparoscopic task performance.

Authors:  S I Brown; T G Frank; G El Shallaly; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-02-10       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Evaluation of face-mounted binocular video display for laparoscopy: outcomes of psychometric skills testing and surgeon satisfaction.

Authors:  Douglas J Minnich; Scott R Schell
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.878

7.  Surgical robotics: impact of motion scaling on task performance.

Authors:  Sunil M Prasad; Sandip M Prasad; Hersh S Maniar; Celeste Chu; Richard B Schuessler; Ralph J Damiano
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Laparoscopic visual field. Voice vs foot pedal interfaces for control of the AESOP robot.

Authors:  M E Allaf; S V Jackman; P G Schulam; J A Cadeddu; B R Lee; R G Moore; L R Kavoussi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting?

Authors:  Ketan K Badani; Akshay Bhandari; Ashutosh Tewari; Mani Menon
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control .

Authors:  L R Kavoussi; R G Moore; J B Adams; A W Partin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  5 in total

1.  A new wide-angle arthroscopic system: a comparative study with a conventional 30° arthroscopic system.

Authors:  Kyunghwa Jung; Dong-Ju Kang; Aashay L Kekatpure; Arnold Adikrishna; Jaesung Hong; In-Ho Jeon
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  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

3.  Comparison of six display modes for a multi-resolution foveated laparoscope.

Authors:  Sangyoon Lee; Hong Hua; Mike Nguyen; Allan J Hamilton
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Improvement of arthroscopic surgical performance using a new wide-angle arthroscope in the surgical training.

Authors:  Jae-Man Kwak; Erica Kholinne; Maulik Gandhi; Arnold Adikrishna; Hanpyo Hong; Yucheng Sun; Kyoung-Hwan Koh; In-Ho Jeon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The investigation of laparoscopic instrument movement control and learning effect.

Authors:  Chiuhsiang Joe Lin; Hung-Jen Chen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.411

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.