Semiu Eniola Folaranmi1, Roland W Partridge2, Paul M Brennan3, Iain A M Hennessey1. 1. 1 Alder Hey Children's Hospital , Liverpool, United Kingdom . 2. 2 Royal Hospital for Sick Children , Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom . 3. 3 Western General Hospital , Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom .
Abstract
AIM: To quantitatively determine whether a three-dimensional (3D) image improves laparoscopic performance compared with a two-dimensional (2D) image. METHOD: This is a prospective study with two groups of participants: novices (5) and experts (5). Individuals within each group undertook a validated laparoscopic task on a box simulator, alternating between 2D and a 3D laparoscopic image until they had repeated the task five times with each imaging modality. A dedicated motion capture camera was used to determine the time taken to complete the task (seconds) and instrument distance traveled (meters). RESULTS: Among the experts, the mean time taken to perform the task on the 3D image was significantly quicker than on the 2D image, 40.2 seconds versus 51.2 seconds, P < .0001. Among the novices, the mean task time again was significantly quicker on the 3D image, 56.4 seconds versus 82.7 seconds, P < .0001. There was no significant difference in the mean time it took a novice to perform the task using a 3D camera compared with an expert on a 2D camera, 56.4 seconds versus 51.3 seconds, P = .3341. CONCLUSION: The use of a 3D image confers a significant performance advantage over a 2D camera in quantitatively measured laparoscopic skills for both experts and novices. The use of a 3D image appears to improve a novice's performance to the extent that it is not statistically different from an expert using a 2D image.
AIM: To quantitatively determine whether a three-dimensional (3D) image improves laparoscopic performance compared with a two-dimensional (2D) image. METHOD: This is a prospective study with two groups of participants: novices (5) and experts (5). Individuals within each group undertook a validated laparoscopic task on a box simulator, alternating between 2D and a 3D laparoscopic image until they had repeated the task five times with each imaging modality. A dedicated motion capture camera was used to determine the time taken to complete the task (seconds) and instrument distance traveled (meters). RESULTS: Among the experts, the mean time taken to perform the task on the 3D image was significantly quicker than on the 2D image, 40.2 seconds versus 51.2 seconds, P < .0001. Among the novices, the mean task time again was significantly quicker on the 3D image, 56.4 seconds versus 82.7 seconds, P < .0001. There was no significant difference in the mean time it took a novice to perform the task using a 3D camera compared with an expert on a 2D camera, 56.4 seconds versus 51.3 seconds, P = .3341. CONCLUSION: The use of a 3D image confers a significant performance advantage over a 2D camera in quantitatively measured laparoscopic skills for both experts and novices. The use of a 3D image appears to improve a novice's performance to the extent that it is not statistically different from an expert using a 2D image.
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