Literature DB >> 25669315

A Comparative Study of Distinct Ocular Symptoms After Performing Laparoscopic Surgical Tasks Using a Three-Dimensional Surgical Imaging System and a Conventional Two-Dimensional Surgical Imaging System.

Jun Zhou1, Han-jiang Xu1, Chao-zhao Liang1, Li Zhang1, Zong-yao Hao1, Li-xia Feng2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Stereoscopic imaging systems have improved the surgical accuracy and patient safety but have induced unwanted visual disturbance, nausea, and ocular symptoms simultaneously. We measured and compared visual discomfort and visual fatigue induced by three-dimensional (3D) surgical imaging system and two-dimentional (2D) surgical imaging system, respectively.
METHODS: This study compared ocular symptoms and visual functions immediately after four laparoscopic tasks including pick beans, paper cut, pass the curved needle, and knot tying. Ten participants started with 3D laparoscopy, 9 participants with 2D laparoscopy on the first day, and reversed the laparoscopy for the participants on the second day. Before performing the tasks and immediately after performing the tasks for 1 hour, the participants underwent an interview with questions on ocular symptoms, and then received the systematic measurements of the visual functions objectively. The ocular symptoms were compared between the two groups, and the visual functions were compared in each group and between the two groups.
RESULTS: When comparing the 3D laparoscopy group with the 2D laparoscopy group, symptom scores showed statistically significant differences in blurred vision during the task (z=-3.64, P=0.00), irritated or burning eyes (z=-2.17, P=0.03), dry eyes (z=-2.72, P=0.01), eyestrain (z=-3.11, P=0.00), headache (z=-3.20, P=0.00), discomfort in eyes (z=-3.74, P=0.00). The objective visual functional parameters such as distance exophoria (P=0.83), near exophoria (P=0.88), distance esophoria (P=0.93), near esophoria (P=0.80), the fusion range (P=0.09), the accommodative convergence/accommodation (P=0.56), and the tear film breakup time (P=0.48) had no significant difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: When the passively polarized 3D surgical imaging system was compared with the 2D surgical imaging system, although subjective feelings were uncomfortable, there was no objective evidence to indicate that the 3D surgical imaging system resulted in an increment of visual fatigue. The visual fatigue and discomforts were moderate and could be tolerated by the surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25669315     DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0759

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Impact of 3D in the training of basic laparoscopic skills and its transferability to 2D environment: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Saseem Poudel; Yo Kurashima; Yusuke Watanabe; Yuma Ebihara; Eiji Tamoto; Soichi Murakami; Toru Nakamura; Takahiro Tsuchikawa; Keisuke Okamura; Toshiaki Shichinohe; Satoshi Hirano
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Comparison of laparoscopic gastrectomy with 3-D/HD and 2-D/4 K camera system for gastric cancer: a prospective randomized control study.

Authors:  Shingo Kanaji; Yuta Yamazaki; Takuya Kudo; Hitoshi Harada; Gosuke Takiguchi; Naoki Urakawa; Hiroshi Hasegawa; Masashi Yamamoto; Kimihiro Yamashita; Takeru Matsuda; Taro Oshikiri; Tetsu Nakamura; Satoshi Suzuki; Yoshihiro Kakeji
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 5.  Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics.

Authors:  Shing Wai Wong; Zhen Hao Ang; Phillip F Yang; Philip Crowe
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-04-22

6.  The effect of latency on surgical performance and usability in a three-dimensional heads-up display visualization system for vitreoretinal surgery.

Authors:  David Ta Kim; David Chow
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 3.117

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.