Literature DB >> 35059956

Image-based laparoscopic camera steering versus conventional steering: a comparison study.

Paul J M Wijsman1,2,3, Lennert Molenaar1,4, Frank J Voskens1,3, Cas D P Van't Hullenaar3,5, Ivo A M J Broeders6,7.   

Abstract

In the last 2 decades, multiple robotic camera holders have been developed to improve camera steering during laparoscopic surgery. A new image-based steering method has been developed for more intuitive camera control. In this article, the efficiency and user experience of image-based steering were compared to conventional steering methods. Four participants (two senior surgical registrars, one junior surgical registrar and a technical medicine student) were enrolled in this study. All participants performed multiple camera steering exercises with three different steering modalities in randomized order: image-based, joystick and manual camera steering. Steering of the laparoscope was evaluated by execution time and with the SMEQ and NASA-TLX questionnaires to analyze user experience. A total of 267 camera steering exercises were performed. The analyzed data showed a significantly shorter execution time for manual camera steering compared to image-based robotic steering (p = 0.001) and joystick robotic steering (p = 0.001). The participants reported the lowest user experience with joystick camera steering. The results of the questionnaires showed no significant difference in all subscales of user experience for image-based and manual camera steering. Manual camera steering resulted in significantly higher perceived physiological workload scores (M = 30.0, IQR = 27.5) compared to image-based (M = 10, IQR = 5.0) and joystick camera steering (M = 15.0, IQR = 10.0). Manual control of the laparoscope remains the fastest steering method at the expense of a high physical workload. Using image-based camera steering is a viable alternative to the current joystick control of robotic camera holders, as it improves speed and user experience. The study results suggest that optimisation of robotic camera steering with algorithms based on image analysis is a promising technology.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computer vision; Image analysis; Laparoscopic camera holder; Laparoscopic camera steering

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35059956     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01342-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  13 in total

1.  [Positioning systems for endoscopic solo surgery].

Authors:  A Arezzo; T Testa; F Ulmer; M O Schurr; M Degregori; G F Buess
Journal:  Minerva Chir       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 2.  Hand assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Husein Moloo; Fatima Haggar; Doug Coyle; Brian Hutton; Suleena Duhaime; Joseph Mamazza; Eric C Poulin; Robin P Boushey; Jeremy Grimshaw
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-10-06

3.  A multicenter prospective cohort study on camera navigation training for key user groups in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Maurits Graafland; Kiki Bok; Henk W R Schreuder; Marlies P Schijven
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 2.058

4.  An international comparison of the utilisation of and outcomes from minimal access surgery for the treatment of common abdominal surgical emergencies.

Authors:  Karina Tukanova; Sheraz R Markar; Sara Jamel; Alberto Vidal-Diez; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Structured assessment of laparoscopic camera navigation skills: the SALAS score.

Authors:  T Huber; M Paschold; F Schneble; A Poplawski; F Huettl; F Watzka; H Lang; W Kneist
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control .

Authors:  L R Kavoussi; R G Moore; J B Adams; A W Partin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Lawrence M J Best; Muntzer Mughal; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-03-31

8.  Evaluation of a remote-controlled laparoscopic camera holder for basic laparoscopic skills acquisition: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mohammad S A Amin; Abdullatif Aydin; Nurhan Abbud; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Domenico Veneziano; Bhaskar Somani; Ali Serdar Gözen; Juan Palou Redorta; M Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta; Jonathan Makanjuoala; Kamran Ahmed
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.

Authors:  Thomas Jaschinski; Christoph G Mosch; Michaela Eikermann; Edmund Am Neugebauer; Stefan Sauerland
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-11-28

10.  Rating of camera navigation skills in colorectal surgery.

Authors:  F Huettl; H Lang; M Paschold; F Watzka; N Wachter; B Hensel; W Kneist; Tobias Huber
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2020-03-28       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  1 in total

1.  Robotic Endoscope Control Via Autonomous Instrument Tracking.

Authors:  Caspar Gruijthuijsen; Luis C Garcia-Peraza-Herrera; Gianni Borghesan; Dominiek Reynaerts; Jan Deprest; Sebastien Ourselin; Tom Vercauteren; Emmanuel Vander Poorten
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2022-04-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.