Literature DB >> 26944729

Age is highly associated with stereo blindness among surgeons: a cross-sectional study.

Charlotte Fergo1, Jakob Burcharth2, Hans-Christian Pommergaard3, Jacob Rosenberg4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of stereo blindness in the general population varies greatly within a range of 1-30 %. Stereo vision adds an extra dimension to aid depth perception and gives a binocular advantage in task completion. Lack of depth perception may lower surgical performance, potentially affecting surgical outcome. 3D laparoscopy offers stereoscopic vision of the operative field to improve depth perception and is being introduced to several surgical specialties; however, a normal stereo vision is a prerequisite. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of stereo blindness among surgeons in the field of general surgery, gynecology, and urology as these are potential users of 3D laparoscopy.
METHODS: The study was conducted according to the STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies. Medical doctors from the department of general surgery, gynecology, and urology were recruited and stereo tested by the use of the Random Dot E stereo test. Upon stereo testing, a demographic questionnaire was completed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the association between stereo blindness and the variables resulting from the univariate analysis.
RESULTS: Three hundred medical doctors completed the study. Of these 9.7 % were stereo blind. There were 47 % women and 53 % men, aged 25-71 years. General surgery was represented with 64 % of the participants, gynecology with 26 %, and urology with 10 %. Age (OR 5.6; CI 1.7-18.9; P = 0.005) and not being aware of having any vision anomaly in need for correction (OR 4; CI 1.4-11.4; P = 0.010) were significantly associated with stereo blindness.
CONCLUSION: Approximately one in ten medical doctors in general surgery, gynecology, and urology were stereo blind with an increasing prevalence with age. This is relevant since stereo blind surgeons will not benefit from the implementation of 3D laparoscopy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D laparoscopy; Binocular; Minimally invasive surgery; Stereo blindness; Stereopsis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26944729     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-4826-9

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


  35 in total

1.  Stereoacuity at distance and near.

Authors:  Bonita P H Wong; Russell L Woods; Eli Peli
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.973

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

Authors:  R Smith; A Day; T Rockall; K Ballard; M Bailey; I Jourdan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  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

Review 4.  Does stereopsis matter in humans?

Authors:  A R Fielder; M J Moseley
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 5.  Stereopsis and amblyopia: A mini-review.

Authors:  Dennis M Levi; David C Knill; Daphne Bavelier
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Clinical evaluation of stereopsis.

Authors:  Gerald Westheimer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Impact of examinees' stereopsis and near visual acuity on laparoscopic virtual reality performance.

Authors:  Henry Hoffmann; Rebecca Ruiz-Schirinzi; David Goldblum; Salome Dell-Kuster; Daniel Oertli; Dieter Hahnloser; Rachel Rosenthal
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2014-10-11       Impact factor: 2.549

8.  Random Dot E stereotest: testability and reliability in 3- to 5-year-old children.

Authors:  Paulette Schmidt; Maureen Maguire; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Velma Dobson; Graham Quinn
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.220

Review 9.  When should surgeons retire?

Authors:  N R Bhatt; M Morris; A O'Neil; A Gillis; P F Ridgway
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  The binocular advantage in visuomotor tasks involving tools.

Authors:  Jenny C A Read; Shah Farzana Begum; Alice McDonald; Jack Trowbridge
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2013-03-20
View more
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  The impact of crosstalk on three-dimensional laparoscopic performance and workload.

Authors:  Shinichiro Sakata; Philip M Grove; Marcus O Watson; Andrew R L Stevenson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The influence of stereoscopic vision on surgical performance in minimal invasive surgery-a substudy of the IDOSP-Study (Influence of 3D- vs. 4 K-Display Systems on Surgical Performance in minimal invasive surgery).

Authors:  Caroline Gietzelt; Rabi Datta; Jana Busshoff; Thomas Bruns; Roger Wahba; Andrea Hedergott
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  The effect on surgical skills of expert surgeons using 3D/HD and 2D/4K resolution monitors in laparoscopic phantom tasks.

Authors:  Hitoshi Harada; Shingo Kanaji; Hiroshi Hasegawa; Masashi Yamamoto; Yoshiko Matsuda; Kimihiro Yamashita; Takeru Matsuda; Taro Oshikiri; Yasuo Sumi; Tetsu Nakamura; Satoshi Suzuki; Yoshihiro Kakeji
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  The learning effect of using stereoscopic vision in the early phase of laparoscopic surgical training for novices.

Authors:  Hitoshi Harada; Shingo Kanaji; Masayasu Nishi; Yoshito Otake; Hiroshi Hasegawa; Masashi Yamamoto; Yoshiko Matsuda; Kimihiro Yamashita; Takeru Matsuda; Taro Oshikiri; Yasuo Sumi; Tetsu Nakamura; Satoshi Suzuki; Yoshinobu Sato; Yoshihiro Kakeji
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Impact of simulated three-dimensional perception on precision of depth judgements, technical performance and perceived workload in laparoscopy.

Authors:  S Sakata; P M Grove; A Hill; M O Watson; A R L Stevenson
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Is 3D faster and safer than 4K laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised-controlled trial.

Authors:  Matt Dunstan; Ralph Smith; Katie Schwab; Andrea Scala; Piers Gatenby; Martin Whyte; Tim Rockall; Iain Jourdan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  4K versus 3D total laparoscopic hysterectomy by resident in training: a prospective randomised trial.

Authors:  S Restaino; V Vargiu; A Rosati; M Bruno; G Dinoi; E Cola; R Moroni; G Scambia; F Fanfani
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2021-09

9.  4K ultra HD technology reduces operative time and intraoperative blood loss in colorectal laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Giulio M Mari; Jacopo Crippa; Pietro Achilli; Angelo Miranda; Letizia Santurro; Valentina Riggio; Martino Gerosa; Pietro Ascheri; Giuseppe Cordaro; Andrea T M Costanzi; Dario Maggioni
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2020-02-11

10.  Commentary: Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Authors:  Todd L Demmy
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2020-08-15
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.