Literature DB >> 9563533

Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display.

G B Hanna1, S M Shimi, A Cuschieri.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of image display location on endoscopic task performance in endoscopic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The image display system is the only visual interface between the surgeon or interventionist and the operative field. Several factors influence the correct perceptual processing and endoscopic manipulation from images. One of these is location of the image display with respect to the surgeon and to the operative site. The present study was conducted to investigate whether endoscopic task performance improves under two conditions: when the surgeon-to-monitor visual axis is aligned with the forearm-instrument motor axis and when the image display is close to the operator's manipulation workspace.
METHODS: An endoscopic task (tying an intracorporeal surgeon's knot) was performed under standardized conditions except for varying monitor locations. These altered the direction of view--in front of, to the left, and to the right of the operator's head and hands. In each of these view directions, the monitor was placed at the surgeon's eye level and lower down, at the level of the operator's hands. The outcome measures were the execution time, knot quality score and performance quality score.
RESULTS: Task performance was better with frontal view direction: execution time was shorter (p < 0.0001) and the performance score was higher (p < 0.005) than with side viewing, with no significant difference between right and left viewing directions. With frontal view direction, hand-level "gaze-down" viewing resulted in a shorter execution time (p < 0.01) and a higher performance score (p < 0.01) than eye-level viewing.
CONCLUSIONS: Task performance improves when the image display is placed in front of the operator, at a level below the head and close to the hands.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9563533      PMCID: PMC1191300          DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199804000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  4 in total

1.  Visual Displays and Visual Perception in Minimal Access Surgery.

Authors: 
Journal:  Semin Laparosc Surg       Date:  1995-09

2.  Objective assessment of endoscopic knot quality.

Authors:  G B Hanna; T G Frank; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Identification of the preferential gaze position through elevation of visual fatigue in a selected group of VDU operators. A preliminary study.

Authors:  F M Quaranta Leoni; F Molle; G Scavino; A Dickmann
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Influence of direction of view, target-to-endoscope distance and manipulation angle on endoscopic knot tying.

Authors:  G B Hanna; S Shimi; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.939

  4 in total
  65 in total

1.  Evaluation of the usability of two types of image display systems, during laparoscopy.

Authors:  M A Veelen; J J Jakimowicz; R H M Goossens; D W Meijer; J B J Bussmann
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-12-31       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The minimally invasive surgical suite enters the 21st century. A discussion of critical design elements.

Authors:  D M Herron; M Gagner; T L Kenyon; L L Swanström
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Image inversion and digital mirror-image technology aid laparoscopic surgery task performance in the paradoxical view: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Richdeep S Gill; David P Al-Adra; Harshdeep Mangat; Haili Wang; Xinzhe Shi; Cliff Sample
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Optimization of the projection screen in a display system for minimal access surgery.

Authors:  S I Brown; T G Frank; A Cuschieri; R Sharpe; C Cartwright
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-05-13       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Ergonomic problems encountered by the medical team related to products used for minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  M A van Veelen; E A L Nederlof; R H M Goossens; C J Schot; J J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-05-06       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Reaction times and the decision-making process in endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  B Zheng; Z Janmohamed; C L MacKenzie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Ergonomic assessment of the static stress confronted by surgeons during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  A Vereczkei; H Feussner; T Negele; F Fritzsche; T Seitz; H Bubb; O P Horváth
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Characterizing the "gold standard" image for laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  S I Brown; C White; K Wipat; G B Hanna; T G Frank; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Review of fluorescence guided surgery visualization and overlay techniques.

Authors:  Jonathan T Elliott; Alisha V Dsouza; Scott C Davis; Jonathan D Olson; Keith D Paulsen; David W Roberts; Brian W Pogue
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 3.732

10.  Anatomical footprint for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy without using any energy source: a modified technique.

Authors:  B B Agarwal; Brij Agarwal; Manish Gupta; Sneh Agarwal; Krishan Mahajan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-05-04       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.