Skills Comparison in Pediatric Residents Using a 2-Dimensional versus a 3-Dimensional High-Definition Camera in a Pediatric Laparoscopic Simulator

Guanà, Riccardo; Ferrero, Luisa; Garofalo, Salvatore; Cerrina, Alessia; Cussa, Davide; Arezzo, Alberto; Schleef, Jürgen

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.12.002

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Headache, nausea and eye strain from 3D laparoscopy have been reported (29)(30)(31)(32), although these were not consistently demonstrated across different studies and subjects (13,14). Three studies reported increased adverse reactions with 3D laparoscopy (25,30,33).…”

Section: Surgeons' Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional laparoscopy: is it as good as it looks?—a review of the literature

Yim¹,

Lo²,

Lau³

et al. 2017

Ann. Laparosc. Endosc. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological advancement has benefited minimal invasive surgery substantially. In terms of enhanced operative vision, three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy provides binocular depth perception, which was absent in the past with the conventional two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy. There have been a number of studies comparing the use of 2D and 3D laparoscopy over the years and they were reviewed in this article. Essentially, 3D laparoscopy resulted in better performance time and lower error rates with specific tasks in experimental settings, and this was seen in surgeons across different levels of experience. The advantage in terms of operative and clinical outcome was equivocal, with some studies demonstrated faster operating time and less blood loss while others showing similar results. Long-term results in this aspect are scarce. Despite these, surgeons appeared to prefer 3D laparoscopy to the conventional 2D imaging system. Nevertheless, there are still questions to be answered and the role of 3D laparoscopy can be better defined with evidence from future studies.

show abstract

Section: Surgeons' Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional laparoscopy: is it as good as it looks?—a review of the literature

Yim¹,

Lo²,

Lau³

et al. 2017

Ann. Laparosc. Endosc. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, Guanà et al in 2017 found superior laparoscopic surgical skills in pediatric surgical residents who used a 3D vs 2D simulator, finding a higher percentage of completed tasks, shorter completion times, and shorter learning curves with 3D simulation. 16 In ophthalmology, the Eyesi 3D surgical simulator is used in residency programs across the country and correlates with surgical performance. In particular, Roohipoor et al found a significant association between Eyesi capsulorhexis score and number of total cataract operations performed by residents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The User Experience on a 3-Dimensional Heads-Up Display for Vitreoretinal Surgery Across All Members of the Health Care Team: A Survey of Medical Students, Residents, Fellows, Attending Surgeons, Nurses, and Anesthesiologists

Shoshany

Agranat

Armstrong

et al. 2020

Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This work assesses the educational use of a 3-dimensional (3D) heads-up visualization system for vitreoretinal surgery. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed among 18 medical students, 18 residents, 7 VR fellows, 6 nurses, 4 anesthesiologists, and 3 surgeons on their experience with the Ngenuity 3D Visualization System (TrueVision and Alcon) compared with the standard microscope. Results: Most medical students (88%) reported better identification of surgical landmarks; 63% ranked the Ngenuity as their preferred method of learning (vs microscope or 2-dimensional display). Residents reported a superior understanding of anatomy (69%), an increased ability to ask questions (63%), and improved ergonomics (94%). Epiretinal membrane peel, internal limiting membrane peel, and core vitrectomy were most enhanced (69% to 77%) for residents. Fellows’ experience with trocar placement, vitrectomy, and oil/gas insertion was the same as before (67% to 100%), whereas endolaser and closing were worse (67% to 100%). Regarding autonomy, 83% of fellows reported no change, whereas 17% reported increased levels. Nurses were better able to track case progress (67%) and anticipate which tools were needed (50%). All anesthesiologists reported the same or worse engagement in cases, noting it was difficult to switch between the 3D screen and the anesthesia equipment. All surgeons reported a better awareness of trainees in the room and an improved ability to point out landmarks; 67% reported being more comfortable with resident and fellow autonomy. Conclusions: The Ngenuity is most helpful to students and residents. Integrating 3D displays into the surgical curriculum is beneficial, with care to ensure nurse and anesthesiologist satisfaction.

show abstract

“…Today, minimally invasive surgery is an established technique in various surgical procedures, and the development in this field continues. In laparoscopy, the original two-dimensional laparoscopic vision system (2D LVS) is being challenged by three-dimensional systems (3D LVS) that provide a stereoscopic perception [1][2][3][4][5]. The advantages reported with 3D vision systems in surgery are shorter operative time, less blood loss, fewer perioperative complications, and shorter length of hospital stay, according to a large meta-analysis performed by Cheng et al [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The advantages reported with 3D vision systems in surgery are shorter operative time, less blood loss, fewer perioperative complications, and shorter length of hospital stay, according to a large meta-analysis performed by Cheng et al [4]. In laparoscopic simulation studies, the 3D LVS is proven to be better in terms of shorter task durations, reduced error rates, and a better subjective experience [3,5,6]. However, one major user complaint regarding the 3D LVSs is that it requires shutter glasses, and the system has also been associated with a bad image quality and experiences of headache, dizziness, eyestrain, nausea, and visual disturbance [2,3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In laparoscopic simulation studies, the 3D LVS is proven to be better in terms of shorter task durations, reduced error rates, and a better subjective experience [3,5,6]. However, one major user complaint regarding the 3D LVSs is that it requires shutter glasses, and the system has also been associated with a bad image quality and experiences of headache, dizziness, eyestrain, nausea, and visual disturbance [2,3]. A new generation of glasses-less 3D LVSs has been invented, and the side effects mentioned above were not reported to be significantly higher than for the 2D LVSs in comparison studies [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Simulator-Based Comparison of a Novel 3D and a Conventional 3D Vision System-Surgical Performance and Subjective Ratings

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In laparoscopy, novel three-dimensional laparoscopic vision systems (3D LVS) without glasses (3D−) have been invented. While standard 3D LVS with glasses (3D+) have shown advantages over original two-dimensional systems, quantitative comparisons of surgical performance between 3D− and 3D+ systems are still lacking. The aim is to compare the systems in simulated robotic surgery tasks. In a crossover study, 18 medical students performed four basic laparoscopic tasks in the validated Simball Box simulator with authentic surgical instruments by using the 3D+ and 3D− systems. Performance was measured by the number of errors and the task’s duration. Subjective ratings of perceptions and preference were assessed after each test. There were significant, but still minor, advantages for the conventional 3D+ system regarding spatial orientation and sense of depth. Overall, ten and eight subjects preferred 3D+ and 3D− systems, respectively. No significant differences were found in performance, post-operative physicals or eye symptoms. The novel 3D− system was similar to the conventional 3D+ system regarding performance and overall preference, while there were minor advantages for the 3D+ system in the subjective ratings. Since the 3D− system is a new invention, it should have a higher potential of usability improvements.

show abstract

Skills Comparison in Pediatric Residents Using a 2-Dimensional versus a 3-Dimensional High-Definition Camera in a Pediatric Laparoscopic Simulator

Cited by 23 publications

References 8 publications

Three-dimensional laparoscopy: is it as good as it looks?—a review of the literature

Three-dimensional laparoscopy: is it as good as it looks?—a review of the literature

The User Experience on a 3-Dimensional Heads-Up Display for Vitreoretinal Surgery Across All Members of the Health Care Team: A Survey of Medical Students, Residents, Fellows, Attending Surgeons, Nurses, and Anesthesiologists

A Simulator-Based Comparison of a Novel 3D and a Conventional 3D Vision System-Surgical Performance and Subjective Ratings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About