Literature DB >> 28281125

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

Shinichiro Sakata1,2,3,4, Philip M Grove5, Marcus O Watson6,5, Andrew R L Stevenson7,8,6.   

Abstract

This is the first study to explore the effects of crosstalk from 3D laparoscopic displays on technical performance and workload. We studied crosstalk at magnitudes that may have been tolerated during laparoscopic surgery. Participants were 36 voluntary doctors. To minimize floor effects, participants completed their surgery rotations, and a laparoscopic suturing course for surgical trainees. We used a counterbalanced, within-subjects design in which participants were randomly assigned to complete laparoscopic tasks in one of six unique testing sequences. In a simulation laboratory, participants were randomly assigned to complete laparoscopic 'navigation in space' and suturing tasks in three viewing conditions: 2D, 3D without ghosting and 3D with ghosting. Participants calibrated their exposure to crosstalk as the maximum level of ghosting that they could tolerate without discomfort. The Randot® Stereotest was used to verify stereoacuity. The study performance metric was time to completion. The NASA TLX was used to measure workload. Normal threshold stereoacuity (40-20 second of arc) was verified in all participants. Comparing optimal 3D with 2D viewing conditions, mean performance times were 2.8 and 1.6 times faster in laparoscopic navigation in space and suturing tasks respectively (p< .001). Comparing optimal 3D with suboptimal 3D viewing conditions, mean performance times were 2.9 times faster in both tasks (p< .001). Mean workload in 2D was 1.5 and 1.3 times greater than in optimal 3D viewing, for navigation in space and suturing tasks respectively (p< .001). Mean workload associated with suboptimal 3D was 1.3 times greater than optimal 3D in both laparoscopic tasks (p< .001). There was no significant relationship between the magnitude of ghosting score, laparoscopic performance and workload. Our findings highlight the advantages of 3D displays when used optimally, and their shortcomings when used sub-optimally, on both laparoscopic performance and workload.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2D; 3D; Ghosting; Laparoscopy; NASA TLX; TAMIS; Three-dimensional; Transanal TME; Two-dimensional

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28281125     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5449-5

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


  14 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Upper limb muscular activity and perceived workload during laryngoscopy: comparison of Glidescope(R) and Macintosh laryngoscopy in manikin: an observational study.

Authors:  D Caldiroli; F Molteni; A Sommariva; S Frittoli; E Guanziroli; P Cortellazzi; E F Orena
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  Three-dimensional vs standard laparoscopy: comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skills.

Authors:  Antonio Cicione; Riccardo Autorino; Alberto Breda; Marco De Sio; Rocco Damiano; Ferdinando Fusco; Francesco Greco; Emanuel Carvalho-Dias; Paulo Mota; Cristina Nogueira; Pedro Pinho; Vincenzo Mirone; Jeorge Correia-Pinto; Jens Rassweiler; Estevao Lima
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 5.  Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stine Maya Dreier Sørensen; Mona Meral Savran; Lars Konge; Flemming Bjerrum
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  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

7.  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

8.  Emergency physicians' behaviors and workload in the presence of an electronic whiteboard.

Authors:  Daniel J France; Scott Levin; Robin Hemphill; Kong Chen; Dorsey Rickard; Renee Makowski; Ian Jones; Dominik Aronsky
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.046

9.  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

10.  Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Authors:  R Smith; K Schwab; A Day; T Rockall; K Ballard; M Bailey; I Jourdan
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  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.  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

3.  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

4.  High-Fidelity Simulation to Assess Task Load Index and Performance: A Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Jérémy Favre-Félix; Mikhail Dziadzko; Christian Bauer; Antoine Duclos; Jean-Jacques Lehot; Thomas Rimmelé; Marc Lilot
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2022-08

5.  Laparoscopic skills training: the effects of viewing mode (2D vs. 3D) on skill acquisition and transfer.

Authors:  Kirsty L Beattie; Andrew Hill; Mark S Horswill; Philip M Grove; Andrew R L Stevenson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Aptitude and attitude: predictors of performance during and after basic laparoscopic skills training.

Authors:  Kirsty L Beattie; Andrew Hill; Mark S Horswill; Philip M Grove; Andrew R L Stevenson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 4.584

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.