Comparison of direct vision and electronic two- and three-dimensional display systems on surgical task efficiency in endoscopic surgery

Abstract

Task efficiency and knot strength was evaluated under standardized conditions using direct vision and electronic imaging with two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) systems. Three operators with different endoscopic surgical experience tied a surgeon's knot with standard endoscopic instruments using the three different visual systems in random order. Each operator tied 20 knots with each visual system. Median task efficiency (defined as the time to complete the knot) was 35.0 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 30.3-43.8) s for direct vision and 53.0 (i.q.r. 45.3-62.8) s and 53.5 (i.q.r. 45.0-64.8) s for 2-D and 3-D imaging respectively (P < 0.05). With respect to direct vision, this represented an overall degradation of task efficiency with the use of electronic imaging of 52 per cent, with no detectable difference between 2-D and 3-D imaging. The knot strength, representing the degree of tightening, was weaker with electronic imaging but the difference was not significant due largely to variation between the three operators.

Impact of 2D and 3D Vision on Performance of Novice Subjects Using da Vinci Robotic System

“…However, the surgical literature shows contradictory results about the benefits of the 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery : some studies showing best motor performances with 3D vision (6-10) while others failed to obtain difference of performance between 2D and 3D (11)(12)(13). Divergence in all these results is partially because first-generation 3D systems, with their lower resolution, were compared with standard 2D systems (4).…”

Perceptual and instrumental impacts of robotic laparoscopy on surgical performance

“…In laparoscopic surgery, new systems allow the use of two-(2D) or three-dimensional (3D) vision. However, the literature reports contradictory results concerning the benefits of 3D vision: some studies show that better motor performances are obtained with 3D vision [1,8,19,25,26] while others fail to reveal any difference in performance between 2D and 3D vision [5,6,12,20]. In some studies [5], only complex tasks were performed faster and more easily with a 3D view whereas no difference between the use of 2D and 3D views appeared when performing the easiest tasks.…”

Applications of micromechatronics in minimally invasive surgery

“…For example, it would seem that stereoscopic endoscopes and displays would be more effective than monoscopic systems. Despite some positive performance data from commercial stereo systems [62], several research groups have shown them to provide little performance benefit [7], [63], [64], and their greater expense and complexity have prevented their adoption by surgeons. Improving viewing geometry by proper placement of the video monitor in the operating room may provide a solution as effective as these systems.…”