Literature DB >> 27539218

The viewpoint-specific failure of modern 3D displays in laparoscopic surgery.

Shinichiro Sakata1,2,3, Philip M Grove4, Andrew Hill5,4, Marcus O Watson6,5,4, Andrew R L Stevenson6,7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Surgeons conventionally assume the optimal viewing position during 3D laparoscopic surgery and may not be aware of the potential hazards to team members positioned across different suboptimal viewing positions. The first aim of this study was to map the viewing positions within a standard operating theatre where individuals may experience visual ghosting (i.e. double vision images) from crosstalk. The second aim was to characterize the standard viewing positions adopted by instrument nurses and surgical assistants during laparoscopic pelvic surgery and report the associated levels of visual ghosting and discomfort.
METHODS: In experiment 1, 15 participants viewed a laparoscopic 3D display from 176 different viewing positions around the screen. In experiment 2, 12 participants (randomly assigned to four clinically relevant viewing positions) viewed laparoscopic suturing in a simulation laboratory. In both experiments, we measured the intensity of visual ghosting. In experiment 2, participants also completed the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire.
RESULTS: We mapped locations within the dimensions of a standard operating theatre at which visual ghosting may result during 3D laparoscopy. Head height relative to the bottom of the image and large horizontal eccentricities away from the surface normal were important contributors to high levels of visual ghosting. Conventional viewing positions adopted by instrument nurses yielded high levels of visual ghosting and severe discomfort.
CONCLUSIONS: The conventional viewing positions adopted by surgical team members during laparoscopic pelvic operations are suboptimal for viewing 3D laparoscopic displays, and even short periods of viewing can yield high levels of discomfort.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D; Crosstalk; Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy; Laparoscopy; Simulator Sickness Questionnaire

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27539218     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1495-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  12 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.  Variation in stereoacuity: normative description, fixation disparity, and the roles of aging and gender.

Authors:  Charles M Zaroff; Magosha Knutelska; Thomas E Frumkes
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Designs of broadband and wide-view patterned polarizers for stereoscopic 3D displays.

Authors:  Chao-Te Lee; Hoang-Yan Lin; Chao-Hsu Tsai
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 3.894

Review 4.  The Conflicting Evidence of Three-dimensional Displays in Laparoscopy: A Review of Systems Old and New.

Authors:  Shinichiro Sakata; Marcus O Watson; Philip M Grove; Andrew R L Stevenson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 5.  Potential hazards of viewing 3-D stereoscopic television, cinema and computer games: a review.

Authors:  Peter A Howarth
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Disorientation and postural ataxia following flight simulation.

Authors:  R S Kennedy; K S Berbaum; M G Lilienthal
Journal:  Aviat Space Environ Med       Date:  1997-01

7.  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

Review 8.  Effect of 3-Dimensional Vision on Surgeons Using the da Vinci Robot for Laparoscopy: More Than Meets the Eye.

Authors:  Shinichiro Sakata; Philip M Grove; Andrew R L Stevenson
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 14.766

9.  The impact of three-dimensional imaging on polyp detection during colonoscopy: a proof of concept study.

Authors:  Shinichiro Sakata; Philip M Grove; Andrew R L Stevenson; David G Hewett
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Are there side effects to watching 3D movies? A prospective crossover observational study on visually induced motion sickness.

Authors:  Angelo G Solimini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  8 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.  Comparison of two- and three-dimensional display for performance of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Shingo Kanaji; Satoshi Suzuki; Hitoshi Harada; Masayasu Nishi; Masashi Yamamoto; Takeru Matsuda; Taro Oshikiri; Tetsu Nakamura; Yasuhiro Fujino; Masahiro Tominaga; Yoshihiro Kakeji
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 3.445

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.  2D vs. 3D imaging in laparoscopic surgery-results of a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Alexander Buia; Florian Stockhausen; Natalie Filmann; Ernst Hanisch
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Three-dimensional Versus Two-dimensional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  George Pantalos; Dimitrios Patsouras; Eleftherios Spartalis; Dimitrios Dimitroulis; Gerasimos Tsourouflis; Nikolaos Nikiteas
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.