Autostereoscopic three-dimensional viewer evaluation through comparison with conventional interfaces in laparoscopic surgery

Surgical Innovation

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 223-230

  Silvestri, Michele ^a   Simi, Massimiliano ^a   Cavallotti, Carmela ^a   Vatteroni, Monica ^a   Ferrari, Vincenzo ^b   Freschi, Cinzia ^b   Valdastri, Pietro ^a   Menciassi, Arianna ^a   Dario, Paolo ^a  

^a SCUOLA SUPERIORE SANT ANNA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

Author keywords

biomedical engineering; ergonomics and or human factors study; SILS; single site surgery; surgical education

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIENCE; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MONITOR; PHYSICIAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; STEREOSCOPIC VISION; SURGEON; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LAPAROSCOPES; LIGHTING; QUESTIONNAIRES; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; VIDEO-ASSISTED SURGERY;

EID: 82955202795     PISSN: 15533506     EISSN: 15533514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1553350611411491     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Tang CL, Eu KW, Tai BC, Soh JGS, Machin D, Seow-Choen F. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of open versus laparoscopically assisted colectomy on systemic immunity in patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2006 ; 88: 801-807 (Pubitemid 32823830)
2. Van Bergen P, Kunert W, Bessell J, Buess GF. Comparative study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional vision systems for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 1998 ; 12: 948-954 (Pubitemid 128532560)
3. Rentschler ME, Dumpert J, Platt SR, Iagnemma K, Oleynikov D, Farritor SM. An in vivo mobile robot for surgical vision and task assistance. J Med Devices. 2007 ; 1: 23-29 (Pubitemid 351780872)
4. Olympus Web site. http://www.olympus-europa.com/endoscopy/. Accessed December 23, 2010.
5. Karl Storz Web site. http://www.karlstorz.com. Accessed December 10, 2010.
6. Chan ACW, Chung SCS, Yim APC, Lau JYW, Ng EKW, Li AKC. Comparison of two-dimensional vs three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1997 ; 11: 438-440 (Pubitemid 127523828)
7. Palep JH. Robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 2009 ; 5: 1-7
8. Falk V, Grunenfelder J, Fann JI, Burdon TA. Influence of three-dimensional vision on surgical telemanipulator performance. Surg Endosc. 2001 ; 15: 1282-1288 (Pubitemid 33035404)
9. Hubens G, Coveliers H, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Vaneerdeweg W. A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc. 2003 ; 17: 1595-1599 (Pubitemid 37467626)
10. Blavier A, Gaudissart Q, Cadiére GB, Nyssen AS. Impact of 2D and 3D vision on performance of novice subject using da Vinci robotc system. Acta Chirurg Belg. 2006 ; 106: 662-664
11. Karl Storz Web site. http://www.karlstorz.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-0024C7EE- 6726C796/karlstorz-en/hs.xs/236.htm. Accessed December 24, 2010.
12. Fowler DL, Hu T, Nadkarni T, Allen PK, Hogle NJ. Initial trial of a stereoscopic, insertable, remotely controlled camera for minimal access surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010 ; 24: 9-15
13. Jourdan IC, Dutson E, Garcia A, et al. Stereoscopic vision provides a significant advantage for precision robotic laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 2004 ; 91: 879-885 (Pubitemid 38901355)
14. Feng C, Rozenblit JW, Hamilton AJ. A computerized assessment to compare the impact of standard, stereoscopic, and high-definition laparoscopic monitor displays on surgical technique. Surg Endosc. 2010 ; 24: 2743-2748
15. Ferré M, Aracil R, Sanchez-Uran M. Stereoscopic human interfaces. Robot Automat Mag. 2008 ; 15: 50-57
16. Nintendo Web site. http://e3.nintendo.com/. Accessed December 19, 2010.
17. Microsoft Web site. http://www.microsoft.com/showcase/. December 21, 2010.
18. Sharp Web site. http://www.sle.sharp.co.uk. Accessed December 10, 2010.
19. Harris M. 3D without four eyes:. IEEE Spectrum. 2010 ; 47: 50-56
20. Alpaslan ZY, Yeh SC, Rizzo AA, Sawchuk AA. Quantitative comparison of interaction with shutter glasses and autostereoscopic displays. Proc SPIE. 2005 ; 5664: 616-625 (Pubitemid 40949159)
21. Mueller-Richter UDA, Limberger A, Weber P, Spitzer W, Schilling M. Comparison between three-dimensional presentation of endoscopic procedures with polarization glasses and an autostereoscopic display. Surg Endosc. 2003 ; 17: 502-504 (Pubitemid 36302338)
22. Valdastri P, Quaglia C, Buselli E, et al. A magnetic internal mechanism for precise orientation of the camera in wireless endoluminal applications. Endoscopy. 2010 ; 42: 481-486
23. Simi M, Silvestri M, Cavallotti C, et al. Development of a magnetic-activated stereoscopic camera for single port laparoscopy. ; Paper presented at: 22nd Conference of Society for Medical Innovation and Technology (SMIT) Trondheim, Norway ;..
24. Miracube Web site. http://www.miracube3d.com/. Accessed December 20, 2010.
25. Hill L, Jacobs A. 3-D liquid crystal displays and their applications. Proc IEEE. 2006 ; 94: 575-589
26. eMagin Web site. http://www.emagin.com/. Accessed December 13, 2010.
27. Buess GF, van Bergen P, Kunert W, Schurr MO. Comparative study of various, 2D and 3D vision systems in minimally invasive surgery. Chirurgia. 1996 ; 67: 1041-1046 (Pubitemid 126488962)
28. Dion YM, Gaillard F. Visual integration of data and basic motor skills under laparoscopy: influence of 2-D and 3-D video-camera systems. Surg Endosc. 1997 ; 11: 995-1000 (Pubitemid 127524214)
29. Freedman D, Pisani R Statistics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton ; 1991 :
30. Barkowsky M, Le Callet P. The influence of autostereoscopic 3D displays on subsequent task performance. Proc SPIE. 2010 ; 7524: 34
31. Yang GZ, Mylonas GP, Kwok KW, Chung A. Perceptual docking for robotic control. ; Paper presented at: 4th International Workshop on Medical Imaging and Augmented Reality (MIAR) Tokyo, Japan ;..