Literature DB >> 26242728

Stereoscopic (3D) versus monoscopic (2D) laparoscopy: comparative study of performance using advanced HD optical systems in a surgical simulator model.

Martin Schoenthaler1, Daniel Schnell1, Konrad Wilhelm1, Daniel Schlager1, Fabian Adams1, Simon Hein1, Ulrich Wetterauer1, Arkadiusz Miernik2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare task performances of novices and experts using advanced high-definition 3D versus 2D optical systems in a surgical simulator model.
METHODS: Fifty medical students (novices in laparoscopy) were randomly assigned to perform five standardized tasks adopted from the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) curriculum in either a 2D or 3D laparoscopy simulator system. In addition, eight experts performed the same tasks. Task performances were evaluated using a validated scoring system of the SAGES/FLS program. Participants were asked to rate 16 items in a questionnaire.
RESULTS: Overall task performance of novices was significantly better using stereoscopic visualization. Superiority of performances in 3D reached a level of significance for tasks peg transfer and precision cutting. No significant differences were noted in performances of experts when using either 2D or 3D. Overall performances of experts compared to novices were better in both 2D and 3D. Scorings in the questionnaires showed a tendency toward lower scores in the group of novices using 3D.
CONCLUSIONS: Stereoscopic imaging significantly improves performance of laparoscopic phantom tasks of novices. The current study confirms earlier data based on a large number of participants and a standardized task and scoring system. Participants felt more confident and comfortable when using a 3D laparoscopic system. However, the question remains open whether these findings translate into faster and safer operations in a clinical setting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D laparoscopy; Dry lab; High-definition optical system; High-definition video; Monoscopic laparoscopy; Stereoscopic laparoscopy

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26242728     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1660-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  23 in total

1.  Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Jeffrey H Peters; Gerald M Fried; Lee L Swanstrom; Nathaniel J Soper; Lelan F Sillin; Bruce Schirmer; Kaaren Hoffman
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.982

2.  Three-dimensional imaging improves surgical performance for both novice and experienced operators using the da Vinci Robot System.

Authors:  John C Byrn; Stefanie Schluender; Celia M Divino; John Conrad; Brooke Gurland; Edward Shlasko; Amir Szold
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method.

Authors:  O J Wagner; M Hagen; A Kurmann; S Horgan; D Candinas; S A Vorburger
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Survey on surgical instrument handle design: ergonomics and acceptance.

Authors:  Laura Santos-Carreras; Monika Hagen; Roger Gassert; Hannes Bleuler
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 2.058

5.  Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  G B Hanna; S M Shimi; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-01-24       Impact factor: 79.321

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.  Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance.

Authors:  Achim Lusch; Philip L Bucur; Ashleigh D Menhadji; Zhamshid Okhunov; Michael Andre Liss; Alberto Perez-Lanzac; Elspeth M McDougall; Jaime Landman
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  Visual fatigue and discomfort after stereoscopic display viewing.

Authors:  Li Zhang; Ya-Qin Zhang; Jing-Shang Zhang; Liang Xu; Jost B Jonas
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 3.761

9.  Novice surgeons: do they benefit from 3D laparoscopy?

Authors:  Mehmet Özsoy; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Iason Kyriazis; Vasileios Panagopoulos; Marinos Vasilas; George C Sakellaropoulos; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 3.161

10.  3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in organ-confined prostate cancer: comparison of operative data and pentafecta rates: a single cohort study.

Authors:  Pierluigi Bove; Valerio Iacovelli; Francesco Celestino; Francesco De Carlo; Giuseppe Vespasiani; Enrico Finazzi Agrò
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2015-02-21       Impact factor: 2.264

View more
  13 in total

1.  3D presentation in surgery: a review of technology and adverse effects.

Authors:  Tianqi Wang; Bin Zheng
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-12-15

2.  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

Review 3.  [3 D laparoscopy versus 2 D laparoscopy : An up to date evaluation].

Authors:  A Buia; S Farkas
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Intraoperative utilization of advanced imaging modalities in a complex kidney stone case: a pilot case study.

Authors:  Andrew R Christiansen; Rami M Shorti; Cory D Smith; William C Prows; Jay T Bishoff
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Impact of three-dimensional vision in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors.

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Margaritis Avgeris; Ioannis Leotsakos; Udo Nagele; Ali Serdar Gözen
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-12-16

6.  Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience.

Authors:  Myltykbay Rysmakhanov; Asset Yelemessov; Nadiar Mussin; Daulet Yessenbayev; Samat Saparbayev; Bazylbek Zhakiyev; Yerlan Sultangereyev
Journal:  Korean J Transplant       Date:  2022-06-13

7.  A secondary learning curve in 3D versus 2D imaging in laparoscopic training of surgical novices.

Authors:  Min Li Kang; Chiew Meng Johnny Wong; Hiangjin Tan; Azri Bohari; Tun Oo Han; Yuen Soon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laser visual guidance versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Stine Maya Dreier Sørensen; Oria Mahmood; Lars Konge; Ebbe Thinggaard; Flemming Bjerrum
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Large-Field-of-View Visualization with Small Blind Spots Utilizing Tilted Micro-Camera Array for Laparoscopic Surgery.

Authors:  Alex J Watras; Jae-Jun Kim; Jianwei Ke; Hewei Liu; Jacob A Greenberg; Charles P Heise; Yu Hen Hu; Hongrui Jiang
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-10       Impact factor: 2.891

10.  Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Systems in Urology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Najib Isse Dirie; Qing Wang; Shaogang Wang
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 2.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.