Minimally invasive surgery: Only as good as the picture

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 40-41

  Drury, Nigel E ^a   Pollard, Rebecca ^a   Dyer, Jonathan P ^a  

^a ROYAL HAMPSHIRE COUNTY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Damage; Honeycomb projection; Laparoscopy; Light leads

Indexed keywords

AMBULATORY SURGERY; ARTICLE; ENDOSCOPY; FIBER OPTICS; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; LAPAROSCOPY; LIGHT QUALITY; MEDICAL AUDIT; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPERATING ROOM; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; SURGICAL INSTRUMENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

ENDOSCOPES; ENDOSCOPY; FIBER OPTICS; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LIGHT; MEDICAL AUDIT;

EID: 0346685858     PISSN: 00358843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1308/003588404772614687     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. Berber E, Siperstein AE. Understanding and optimising laparoscopic video-systems. Surg Endosc 2001;15:781-7.
2. Schwaitzberg SD. Imaging systems in minimally invasive surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg 2001; 8: 3-11.
3. den Boer KT, de Jong T, Dankelman J, Gouma DJ. Problems with laparoscopic instruments: Opinions of experts. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2001; 11: 149-55.