Effect of visual displays and locations on laparoscopic surgical training task

Applied Ergonomics

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 762-767

  Rogers, Meghan L ^a   Heath, Will B ^a   Uy, Chad C ^a   Suresh, Sameerajan ^a   Kaber, David B ^a  

^a North Carolina State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Minimally invasive surgery; Monitor position

Indexed keywords

LAPAROSCOPY; PATIENT REHABILITATION;

COGNITIVE WORKLOADS; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGICAL TRAINING; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PERCEPTUAL PROCESSING; PERFORMANCE ISSUES; SUBJECTIVE RANKING; SUPPORTING TECHNOLOGY;

SURGERY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BODY POSITION; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MALE; MATERIALS HANDLING; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MONITOR; RESPONSE TIME; SURGICAL TRAINING; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL DISPLAY; WORKLOAD;

EID: 84858072863     PISSN: 00036870     EISSN: 18729126     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.11.010     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bailey R.W. Performance vs. preference. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings 1993, vol. 37. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 282-286.
2. Berci G., Phillips E., Fujita F. The operating room of the future: what, when and why?. Surgical Endoscopy 2004, 18(1):1-5.
3. Cullen K.A., Hall M.J., Golosinskiy A. Ambulatory surgery in the United States, 2006. National Health Statistics Reports 2009, 11:1-25. Retrieved from:. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21531867.
4. DeLucia P.R., Betts E.T. Separated versus integrated displays in minimally-invasive surgery. Human Factors and Ergonomics 2008, 52(12):894.
5. Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery FLS Manual Skills Instructions and Performance Guidelines 2010, Retrieved September 15, 2010 from:. http://www.flsprogram.org/index/fls-program-description/.
6. Gallagher A.G., McClure N., McGuigan J., Ritchie K., Sheehy N.P. An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy 1998, 30(7):617-620. 10.1055/s-2007-1001366.
7. Hanna G.B., Shimi S., Cuschieri A. Influence of direction of view, target-to-endoscope distance and manipulation angle on endoscopic knot tying. The British Journal of Surgery 1997, 84(10):1460-1464.
8. Hanna G.B., Shimi S.M., Cuschieri A. Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Annals of Surgery 1998, 227(4):481-484.
9. Haveran L.A., Novitsky Y.W., Czerniach D.R., Kaban G.K., Taylor M., Gallagher-Dorval K., et al. Optimizing laparoscopic task efficiency: the role of camera and monitor positions. Surgical Endoscopy 2007, 21(6):980-984.
10. Herron D.M., Gagner M., Kenyon T.L., Swanström L.L. The minimally invasive surgical suite enters the 21st century. Surgical Endoscopy 2001, 15(4):415-422.
11. Liu Y., Wickens C.D. Visual scanning with or without spatial uncertainty and divided and selective attention. Acta Psychologica 1992, 79(2):131-153.
12. Martin-Emerson R., Wickens C.D. Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 1997, 39(4):581-601.
13. Matern U., Faist M., Kehl K., Giebmeyer C., Buess G. Monitor position in laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy 2005, 19(3):436-440.
14. Patkin M., Isabel L. Ergonomics, engineering and surgery of endosurgical dissection. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 1995, 40(2):120-132.
15. Quinn G.P., Keough M.J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists 2002, Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.
16. Scott-Conner C.E.H. The SAGES Manual: Fundamentals of Laparoscopy, Thoracoscopy, and GI Endoscopy 2006, Springer, New York, New York, USA, pp. 533. second ed.
17. Shah R.D., Cao A., Golenberg L., Ellis R.D., Auner G.W., Pandya A.K., et al. Performance of basic manipulation and intracorporeal suturing tasks in a robotic surgical system: single-versus dual-monitor views. Surgical Endoscopy 2009, 23(4):727-733.
18. Tayyari F., Smith J.L. Occupational Ergonomics 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
19. van Det M.J., Meijerink W.J.H.J., Hoff C., Totté E.R., Pierie J.P.E.N. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surgical Endoscopy 2009, 23(6):1279-1285.
20. van Veelen M.A., Kazemier G., Koopman J., Goossens R.H.M., Meijer D.W. Assessment of the ergonomically optimal operating surface height for laparoscopic surgery. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 2002, 12(1):47-52.
21. van Veelen M.A., Jakimowicz J.J., Goossens R.H.M., Meijer D.W., Bussmann J.B.J. Evaluation of the usability of two types of image display systems, during laparoscopy. Surgical Endoscopy 2002, 16(4):674-678.
22. Wang Y., MacKenzie C.L. Effects of orientation disparity between haptic and graphic displays of objects in virtual environments. Human-Computer Interaction - Interact'99 1999, 391-398.
23. Wickens C.D., Carswell C.M. The proximity compatibility principle: its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors 1995, 37(3):473.
24. Zhang, L., Cao, C.G.L., 2010. The effect of image orientation on a dynamic laparoscopic task. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, pp. 774-778.