Literature DB >> 22234585

Advanced stereoscopic projection technology significantly improves novice performance of minimally invasive surgical skills.

R Smith1, A Day, T Rockall, K Ballard, M Bailey, I Jourdan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) surgical imaging systems provide stereoscopic depth cues that are lost in conventional two-dimensional (2D) display systems. Recent improvements in stereoscopic projection technology using passive polarising displays may improve performance of minimally invasive surgical skills. This study aims to identify the effect of passive polarising stereoscopic displays on novice surgeon performance of minimally invasive surgical skills.
METHODS: 20 novice surgeons performed 10 repetitions of 4 surgical skills tasks using a new passive polarising stereoscopic display under 3D and 2D conditions. The previously validated tasks used were rope pass, paper cut, needle capping and knot tying. Outcome measures included total error rate and time for task completion.
RESULTS: Novice surgeons demonstrated a significant reduction in error rates for sequential repetitions of each task using the passive polarising stereoscopic display compared with the 2D display. Mean errors for the 3D versus the 2D mode were 2.0 versus 4.3 for rope pass (P ≤ 0.001), 0.8 versus 1.6 for paper cut (P = 0.001), 1.3 versus 4.2 for needle capping (P ≤ 0.001) and 2.8 versus 8.0 for knot tying (P ≤ 0.001). Novice surgeons demonstrated a significant improvement in mean time for completion for all four tasks when using the 3D system. Mean time (in seconds) for 3D versus 2D were 106.5 versus 134.4 for rope pass (P ≤ 0.001), 116.1 versus 176.3 for paper cut (P ≤ 0.001), 76.3 versus 141.6 for needle capping (P ≤ 0.001) and 153.4 versus 252.6 for knot tying (P ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Passive polarising stereoscopic displays significantly improve novice surgeon performance during acquisition of minimally invasive surgical skills.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22234585     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2080-8

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


  10 in total

1.  Influence of three-dimensional vision on surgical telemanipulator performance.

Authors:  V Falk; D Mintz; J Grünenfelder; J I Fann; T A Burdon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-09-04       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The benefits of stereoscopic vision in robotic-assisted performance on bench models.

Authors:  Y Munz; K Moorthy; A Dosis; J D Hernandez; S Bann; F Bello; S Martin; A Darzi; T Rockall
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-02-02       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The effects of different viewing conditions on performance in simulated minimal access surgery.

Authors:  J W Hubber; N Taffinder; R C G Russell; A Darzi
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2003-08-15       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved phenomena of binocular vision.

Authors:  C WHEATSTONE
Journal:  Optom Wkly       Date:  1962-11-22

5.  Stereoscopic vision provides a significant advantage for precision robotic laparoscopy.

Authors:  I C Jourdan; E Dutson; A Garcia; T Vleugels; J Leroy; D Mutter; J Marescaux
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  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

7.  Three-Dimensional (3D) Vision: Does It Improve Laparoscopic Skills? An Assessment of a 3D Head-Mounted Visualization System.

Authors:  Sam B Bhayani; Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2005

8.  Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three-dimensional visualization? A validated assessment.

Authors:  Hitendra R H Patel; Maria-Jose Ribal; Manit Arya; Rohan Nauth-Misir; Jean V Joseph
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Comparison of two- and three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic performance: a novel 3D system with one camera.

Authors:  Seong-Ho Kong; Byung-Mo Oh; Hongman Yoon; Hye Seong Ahn; Hyuk-Joon Lee; Sun Geun Chung; Norio Shiraishi; Seigo Kitano; Han-Kwang Yang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Influence of 2D and 3D view on performance and time estimation in minimal invasive surgery.

Authors:  A Blavier; A S Nyssen
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.778

  10 in total
  36 in total

1.  Two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for vaginal cuff closure by surgeons-in-training: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mobolaji O Ajao; Christian R Larsen; Elmira Manoucheri; Emily R Goggins; Maja T Rask; Mary K B Cox; Avery Mushinski; Xiangmei Gu; Sarah L Cohen; Martin Rudnicki; Jon I Einarsson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stine Maya Dreier Sørensen; Mona Meral Savran; Lars Konge; Flemming Bjerrum
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  3D visualization reduces operating time when compared to high-definition 2D in laparoscopic liver resection: a case-matched study.

Authors:  Vimalraj Velayutham; David Fuks; Takeo Nomi; Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Brice Gayet
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  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

5.  Randomized, controlled trial comparing clinical outcomes of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an interim report.

Authors:  Jun Lu; Chao-Hui Zheng; Hua-Long Zheng; Ping Li; Jian-Wei Xie; Jia-Bin Wang; Jian-Xian Lin; Qi-Yue Chen; Long-Long Cao; Mi Lin; Ru-Hong Tu; Chang-Ming Huang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  A randomized prospective study comparing acquisition of laparoscopic skills in three-dimensional (3D) vs. two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy.

Authors:  B Alaraimi; W El Bakbak; S Sarker; S Makkiyah; A Al-Marzouq; R Goriparthi; A Bouhelal; V Quan; B Patel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Three-dimensional imaging improves surgical skill performance in a laparoscopic test model for both experienced and novice laparoscopic surgeons.

Authors:  Roy Mashiach; Vadym Mezhybovsky; Avinoam Nevler; Mordechai Gutman; Amitai Ziv; Marat Khaikin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  [Further technical and digital development in minimally invasive and conventional surgery].

Authors:  H Feussner; S B Reiser; M Bauer; M Kranzfelder; R Schirren; J Kleeff; D Wilhelm
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 0.955

9.  Stereoscopic augmented reality for laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Xin Kang; Mahdi Azizian; Emmanuel Wilson; Kyle Wu; Aaron D Martin; Timothy D Kane; Craig A Peters; Kevin Cleary; Raj Shekhar
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  Three-dimensional thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction.

Authors:  C Jacobs; M M Plöger; S Scheidt; P P Roessler; S Koob; K Kabir; C Jacobs; D C Wirtz; C Burger; R Pflugmacher; F Trommer
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 1.154

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.