OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical acceptability of various levels of video compression for remote proctoring of laparoscopic surgical procedures. DESIGN: Observational, controlled study. SETTING: Community-based teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Physician and nurse observers. INTERVENTIONS: Controlled surgical video scenes were subjected to various levels of data compression for digital transmission and display and shown to participant observers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical acceptability of video scenes after application of video compression. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable video compression was achieved with a 1.25-megabit/second data rate, with the use of odd-screen 43.3:1 Joint Photographic Expert Group compression and a small screen for remote viewing. CONCLUSION: With proper video compression, remote proctoring of laparoscopic procedures may be performed with standard 1.5-megabit/second telecommunication data lines and services.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical acceptability of various levels of video compression for remote proctoring of laparoscopic surgical procedures. DESIGN: Observational, controlled study. SETTING: Community-based teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Physician and nurse observers. INTERVENTIONS: Controlled surgical video scenes were subjected to various levels of data compression for digital transmission and display and shown to participant observers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical acceptability of video scenes after application of video compression. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable video compression was achieved with a 1.25-megabit/second data rate, with the use of odd-screen 43.3:1 Joint Photographic Expert Group compression and a small screen for remote viewing. CONCLUSION: With proper video compression, remote proctoring of laparoscopic procedures may be performed with standard 1.5-megabit/second telecommunication data lines and services.
Authors: Allan Okrainec; Melina Vassiliou; Andrew Kapoor; Kristen Pitzul; Oscar Henao; Pepa Kaneva; Timothy Jackson; E Matt Ritter Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 4.584