OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Relative to microscopic transnasal surgery, endoscopic surgery provides improved visualization with an increased field of view. Advances such as high-definition (HD) and three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy have been introduced and clearly improve visualization. However, do both technologies maintain an increased field of view? We hypothesize that the field of view of 3D endoscopy is restricted relative to two-dimensional (2D) HD endoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Laboratory investigation, prospective case series. METHODS: Standard measurements at 6-cm and 2-cm working distances where made to determine the comparative field of view utilizing Storz 0° 2D HD and Visionsense 3D endoscopes. Relative measurements were then made to determine field of view. Five clinical patients were then utilized to confirm laboratory studies and demonstrate the relative field of view change. RESULTS: 3D endoscopy demonstrates a 52% loss of field of view compared to 2D endoscopy in a controlled lab testing. This was confirmed in a small clinical patient series where a 55% ± 3% relative field of view reduction was observed. CONCLUSIONS: When working with 3D endoscopy in a currently available commercial product, the operator should be aware that relative to HD 2D endoscopy, there is a field of view restriction of 52%. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Relative to microscopic transnasal surgery, endoscopic surgery provides improved visualization with an increased field of view. Advances such as high-definition (HD) and three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy have been introduced and clearly improve visualization. However, do both technologies maintain an increased field of view? We hypothesize that the field of view of 3D endoscopy is restricted relative to two-dimensional (2D) HD endoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Laboratory investigation, prospective case series. METHODS: Standard measurements at 6-cm and 2-cm working distances where made to determine the comparative field of view utilizing Storz 0° 2D HD and Visionsense 3D endoscopes. Relative measurements were then made to determine field of view. Five clinical patients were then utilized to confirm laboratory studies and demonstrate the relative field of view change. RESULTS: 3D endoscopy demonstrates a 52% loss of field of view compared to 2D endoscopy in a controlled lab testing. This was confirmed in a small clinical patient series where a 55% ± 3% relative field of view reduction was observed. CONCLUSIONS: When working with 3D endoscopy in a currently available commercial product, the operator should be aware that relative to HD 2D endoscopy, there is a field of view restriction of 52%. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
Authors: Abdul Nassimizadeh; S M Zaidi; Mohammad Nassimizadeh; Amir Kholief; Shahzada K Ahmed Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2018-10-03
Authors: Ellen Ten Dam; Herman M Helder; Bernard F A M van der Laan; Robert A Feijen; Astrid G W Korsten-Meijer Journal: Clin Otolaryngol Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 2.597