Literature DB >> 32895010

Further Comparison of 4 Display Modes for a Multi-Resolution Foveated Laparoscope.

Sangyoon Lee1, Hong Hua1, Mike Nguyen2, Allan J Hamilton3.   

Abstract

Background. To overcome field of view and ergonomic limitations of standard laparoscopes, we are developing a multi-resolution foveated laparoscope (MRFL), which can simultaneously obtain both wide- and zoomed-in-view images. To facilitate the effectiveness of our MRFL, we have been investigating various ways of organizing and visualizing dual-view multi-resolution images acquired by the MRFL. In our prior study, we implemented and compared 6 display modes for the MRFL, assuming a typical clinical environment where a standard (but limited) resolution monitor is available. To take full advantage of our MRFL, displays having sufficient screen resolutions might be advantageous. The present study aims to further understand the effects of view configurations through displays with a standard high-definition (HD) resolution and a 4K resolution. In this study, we compare 3 display modes for limited-resolution displays against a new mode for sufficient-resolution displays. Methods. Twenty subjects performed 3 evaluation trials of a touching task with each display mode in an emulated MRFL environment. Various objective measurements including task completion time and the number of collisions, and subjective preference were recorded. Results. The new mode showed a better task completion time than the other modes, while it maintained a low number of collisions similar to the others. Moreover, the majority of participants selected the new mode as their most preferred one. Conclusions. With a sufficient display resolution, the co-registration between the unblocked and unwarped wide context view and the high-resolution zoomed-in view offered by the new mode was highly effective on both task performance and user preference.

Entities:  

Keywords:  display interface; dual views; focus plus context; laparoscope; multi-resolution visualization; overview plus detail

Year:  2020        PMID: 32895010      PMCID: PMC7936989          DOI: 10.1177/1553350620957799

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Innov        ISSN: 1553-3506            Impact factor:   2.058


  6 in total

1.  Fluidic lens laparoscopic zoom camera for minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Frank S Tsai; Daniel Johnson; Cameron S Francis; Sung Hwan Cho; Wen Qiao; Ashkan Arianpour; Yoav Mintz; Santiago Horgan; Mark Talamini; Yu-Hwa Lo
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2010 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.170

2.  Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems.

Authors:  J Heemskerk; R Zandbergen; J G Maessen; J W M Greve; N D Bouvy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Minimal access surgery and the future of interventional laparoscopy.

Authors:  A Cuschieri
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  High definition laparoscopy: objective assessment of performance characteristics and comparison with standard laparoscopy.

Authors:  Sean A Pierre; Michael N Ferrandino; W Neal Simmons; Christina Fernandez; Pei Zhong; David M Albala; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Contemporary trends in nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in the United States: results from a population based cohort.

Authors:  Simon P Kim; Nilay D Shah; Christopher J Weight; R Houston Thompson; James P Moriarty; Nathan D Shippee; Brian A Costello; Stephen A Boorjian; Bradley C Leibovich
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-09-25       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Comparison of six display modes for a multi-resolution foveated laparoscope.

Authors:  Sangyoon Lee; Hong Hua; Mike Nguyen; Allan J Hamilton
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 4.584

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.