BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the surgeon performance and workload of a next-generation magnetically anchored camera compared with laparoscopic and flexible endoscopic imaging systems for laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopy (SSL) settings. METHODS: The cameras included a 5-mm 30° laparoscope (LAP), a magnetically anchored (MAGS) camera, and a flexible endoscope (ENDO). The three camera systems were evaluated using standardized optical characteristic tests. Each system was used in random order for visualization during performance of a standardized suturing task by four surgeons. Each participant performed three to five consecutive repetitions as a surgeon and also served as a camera driver for other surgeons. Ex vivo testing was conducted in a laparoscopic multiport and SSL layout using a box trainer. In vivo testing was performed only in the multiport configuration and used a previously validated live porcine Nissen model. RESULTS: Optical testing showed superior resolution for MAGS at 5 and 10 cm compared with LAP or ENDO. The field of view ranged from 39 to 99°. The depth of focus was almost three times greater for MAGS (6-270 mm) than for LAP (2-88 mm) or ENDO (1-93 mm). Both ex vivo and in vivo multiportcombined surgeon performance was significantly better for LAP than for ENDO, but no significant differences were detected for MAGS. For multiport testing, workload ratings were significantly less ex vivo for LAP and MAGS than for ENDO and less in vivo for LAP than for MAGS or ENDO. For ex vivo SSL, no significant performance differences were detected, but camera drivers rated the workload significantly less for MAGS than for LAP or ENDO. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that the improved imaging element of the next-generation MAGS camera has optical and performance characteristics that meet or exceed those of the LAP or ENDO systems and that the MAGS camera may be especially useful for SSL. Further refinements of the MAGS camera are encouraged.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the surgeon performance and workload of a next-generation magnetically anchored camera compared with laparoscopic and flexible endoscopic imaging systems for laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopy (SSL) settings. METHODS: The cameras included a 5-mm 30° laparoscope (LAP), a magnetically anchored (MAGS) camera, and a flexible endoscope (ENDO). The three camera systems were evaluated using standardized optical characteristic tests. Each system was used in random order for visualization during performance of a standardized suturing task by four surgeons. Each participant performed three to five consecutive repetitions as a surgeon and also served as a camera driver for other surgeons. Ex vivo testing was conducted in a laparoscopic multiport and SSL layout using a box trainer. In vivo testing was performed only in the multiport configuration and used a previously validated live porcine Nissen model. RESULTS: Optical testing showed superior resolution for MAGS at 5 and 10 cm compared with LAP or ENDO. The field of view ranged from 39 to 99°. The depth of focus was almost three times greater for MAGS (6-270 mm) than for LAP (2-88 mm) or ENDO (1-93 mm). Both ex vivo and in vivo multiport combined surgeon performance was significantly better for LAP than for ENDO, but no significant differences were detected for MAGS. For multiport testing, workload ratings were significantly less ex vivo for LAP and MAGS than for ENDO and less in vivo for LAP than for MAGS or ENDO. For ex vivo SSL, no significant performance differences were detected, but camera drivers rated the workload significantly less for MAGS than for LAP or ENDO. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that the improved imaging element of the next-generation MAGS camera has optical and performance characteristics that meet or exceed those of the LAP or ENDO systems and that the MAGS camera may be especially useful for SSL. Further refinements of the MAGS camera are encouraged.
Authors: Matthew M Hutter; Sheldon Randall; Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; William M Abbott; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 12.969
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
Authors: Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman; Melina C Vassiliou; Shannon A Fraser; Donna Stanbridge; Gabriela Ghitulescu; Christopher G Andrew Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Francisco Asencio; Javier Aguiló; Salvador Peiró; Juan Carbó; Ramón Ferri; Federico Caro; Marwan Ahmad Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Arnold P Advincula; Monish Aron; Jeffrey Caddedu; David Canes; Paul G Curcillo; Mihir M Desai; John C Evanko; Tomasso Falcone; Victor Fazio; Matthew Gettman; Andrew A Gumbs; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad H Kaouk; Fernando Kim; Stephanie A King; Jeffrey Ponsky; Feza Remzi; Homero Rivas; Alexander Rosemurgy; Sharona Ross; Philip Schauer; Rene Sotelo; Jose Speranza; John Sweeney; Julio Teixeira Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J R Korndorffer; D J Hayes; J B Dunne; R Sierra; C L Touchard; R J Markert; D J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Nabeel A Arain; Luisangel Rondon; Deborah C Hogg; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Richard Bergs; Raul Fernandez; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 4.584