High definition laparoscopy: Objective assessment of performance characteristics and comparison with standard laparoscopy

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 523-528

  Pierre, Sean A ^a   Ferrandino, Michael N ^a   Simmons, W Neal ^b   Fernandez, Christina ^b   Zhong, Pei ^b   Albala, David M ^a   Preminger, Glenn M ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Duke University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRIGHTNESS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COLOR; CONTRAST; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY; LAPAROSCOPE; LAPAROSCOPY; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LIGHT RELATED PHENOMENA;

LAPAROSCOPES; LAPAROSCOPY; OPTICAL PHENOMENA;

EID: 65549129098     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0277     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Gettman MT, Blute ML. Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: Techniques, outcomes, and cost. Curr Urol Rep 2006;7:193.
2. Hegarty NJ, Kaouk JH. Radical prostatectomy: A comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques. Can J Urol 2006;13 Suppl 1:56.
3. Kerbl K, Clayman RV, McDougall EM, Gill IS, Wilson BS, Chandhoke PS, et al. Transperitoneal nephrectomy for benign disease of the kidney: A comparison of laparoscopic and open surgical techniques. Urology 1994;43:607.
4. Kercher KW, Heniford BT, Matthews BD, Smith TI, Lincourt AE, Hayes DH, et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in 210 consecutive patients: Outcomes, cost, and changes in practice patterns. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1889.
5. Kim HH, Kim GH, Sung GT. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma: Comparison with conventional open adrenalectomy. J Endourol 2004;18:251.
6. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003;44:340.
7. Bholat OS, Haluck RS, Kutz RH, Gorman PJ, Krummel TM. Defining the role of haptic feedback in minimally invasive surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 1999;62:62.
8. Okamura AM. Methods for haptic feedback in teleoperated robot-assisted surgery. Industrial Robotics 2004;31:499.
9. Ottermo MV, Ovstedal M, Lango T, Stavdahl O, Yavuz Y, Johansen TA, et al. The role of tactile feedback in laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Percutaneous Techniques 2006;16:390.
10. Kourambas J, Preminger GM. Advances in camera, video, and imaging technologies in laparoscopy. Urol Clin North Am 2001;28:5.
11. Satava RM. 3-D vision technology applied to advanced minimally invasive surgery systems. Surg Endosc 1993;7:429.
12. Berber E, Siperstein AE. Understanding and optimizing laparoscopic videosystems. Surg Endosc 2001;15:781.
13. Stefansic JD, Herline AJ, Shyr Y, Chapman WC, Fitzpatrick JM, Dawant BM, et al. Registration of physical space to laparoscopic image space for use in minimally invasive hepatic surgery. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2000;19:1012.
14. Pincetl PS, Merril JR, Piemme TE. Fundamentals of image processing for personal computers. MD Comput 1993; 10:42.
15. Aslan P, Kuo RL, Hazel K, Babayan RK, Preminger GM. Advances in digital imaging during endoscopic surgery. J Endourol 1999;13:251.
16. Kuo RL, Preminger GM. Current urologic applications of digital imaging. J Endourol 2001;15:53.
17. van Bergen P, Kunert W, Buess GF. The effect of high-definition imaging on surgical task efficiency in minimally invasive surgery: An experimental comparison between three-dimensional imaging and direct vision through a stereoscopic TEM rectoscope. Surg Endosc 2000;14:71.
18. Hagiike M, Phillips EH, Berci G. Performance differences in laparoscopic surgical skills between true high-definition and three-chip CCD video systems. Surg Endosc 2007;21: 1849.
19. Cosman PH, Shearer CJ, Hugh TJ, Biankin AV, Merrett ND. A novel approach to high definition, high-contrast video capture in abdominal surgery. Ann Surg 2007;245:533.
20. Berci G, Wren SM, Stain SC, Peters J, Paz-Partlow M. Individual assessment of visual perception by surgeons observing the same laparoscopic organs with various imaging systems. Surg Endosc 1995;9:967.
21. Tendick F, Bhoyrul S, Way LW. Comparison of laparoscopic imaging systems and conditions using a knot-tying task. Comput Aided Surg 1997;2:24.
22. Danis J. The effect of contrast variation on task performance in video evaluation. Surg Endosc 1998;12:1013.
23. Smith WE, Vakil N, Maislin SA. Correction of distortion in endoscope images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1992;11:117.
24. Asari KV, Kumar S, Radhakrishnan D. Technique of distortion correction in endoscopic images using a polynomial expansion. Med Biol Eng Comput 1999;37:8.
25. Asari KV, Kumar S, Radhakrishnan D. A new approach for nonlinear distortion correction in endoscopic images based on least squares estimation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1999; 18:345.
26. Hanna GB, Cresswell AB, Cuschieri A. Shadow depth cues and endoscopic task performance. Arch Surg 2002;137:1166.
27. Miranda-Luna R, Daul C, Blondel WC, Hernandez-Mier Y, Wolf D, Guillemin F. Mosaicing of bladder endoscopic image sequences: Distortion calibration and registration algorithm. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008;55:541.
28. Hanna G, Cuschieri A. Image display technology and image processing. World J Surg 2001;25:1419.
29. Flores A, Iqbal A, Elizalde Di Martino A. Resolution and magnification of the laparoscope: An observational analysis. J Assoc Mex Surg Endosc 2004;5:104.
30. Puc MM, Chrzanowski FA Jr., Tran H, Geldziler B, Martucci M, Doolin EJ, et al. Multiple oblique illumination and high-definition microscopy for breast fine-needle aspirates. J Invest Surg 2000;13:259.