Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 363–370 | Cite as

3D presentation in surgery: a review of technology and adverse effects

  • Tianqi Wang
  • Bin ZhengEmail author
Review Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

A systematic review was undertaken to assess the technology used to create stereovision for human perception. Adverse effects associated with artificial stereoscopic technology were reviewed with an emphasis on the impact of surgical performance in the operating room. MEDLINE/PubMed library databases were used to identify literature published up to Aug 2017. In the past 60 years, four major types of technologies have been used for reconstructing stereo images: anaglyph, polarization, active shutter, and autostereoscopy. As none of them can perfectly duplicate our natural stereoperception, user exposure to this artificial environment for a period of time can lead to a series of psychophysiological responses including nausea, dizziness, and others. The exact mechanism underlying these symptoms is not clear. Neurophysiologic evidences suggest that the visuo-vestibular pathway plays a vital role in coupling unnatural visual inputs to autonomic neural responses. When stereoscopic technology was used in surgical environments, controversial results were reported. Although recent advances in stereoscopy are promising, no definitive evidence has yet been presented to support that stereoscopes can enhance surgical performance in image-guided surgery. Stereoscopic technology has been rapidly introduced to healthcare. Adverse effects to human operators caused by immature technology seem inevitable. The impact on surgeons working with this visualization system needs to be explored and its safety and feasibility need to be addressed.

Keywords

Stereopsis 3D presentation Surgical performance Adverse effects, human factors 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Mr. Tianqi Wang declares that he has no conflict of interests. Dr. Bin Zheng declares that he has no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Geng J (2013) Three-dimensional display technologies. Adv Opt Photonics 5(4):456–535Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Soranzo A, Wilson CJ (2015) Virtual environments in visual perception: applications and challenges. In: Virtual reality: technologies, medical applications and challenges. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 73–80Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schoenthaler M, Schnell D, Wilhelm K, Schlager D, Adams F, Hein S, Wetterauer U, Miernik A (2016) Stereoscopic (3D) versus monoscopic (2D) laparoscopy: comparative study of performance using advanced HD optical systems in a surgical simulator model. World J Urol 34(4):471–477Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zone R (2007) Stereoscopic cinema and the origins of 3D film. University Press of Kentucky, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipton L (2007) The last great innovation: the stereoscopic cinema. SMPTE Motion Imaging J 116(11–12):518–523Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tam WJ, Speranza F, Yano S, Shimono K, Ono H (2011) Stereoscopic 3D-TV: visual comfort. IEEE Trans Broadcast 57(2):335–346Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poudel S, Kurashima Y, Watanabe Y, Ebihara Y, Tamoto E, Murakami S, Nakamura T, Tsuchikawa T, Okamura K, Shichinohe T et al (2017) Impact of 3D in the training of basic laparoscopic skills and its transferability to 2D environment: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 31(3):1111–1118Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Livatino S, De Paolis LT, D’Agostino M, Zocco A, Agrimi A, De Santi A, Bruno LV, Lapresa M (2015) Stereoscopic visualization and 3-D technologies in medical endoscopic teleoperation. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 62(1):525–535Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chinnock C (1994) Virtual reality in surgery and medicine. Hosp Technol Ser 13(18):1–48Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Satava RM (1993) 3-D vision technology applied to advanced minimally invasive surgery systems. Surg Endosc 7(5):429–431Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burdea G, Richard P, Coiffet P (1996) Multimodal virtual reality: input–output devices, system integration, and human factors. Int J Hum Comput Interact 8(1):5–24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falk V, Mintz D, Grunenfelder J, Fann JI, Burdon TA (2001) Influence of three-dimensional vision on surgical telemanipulator performance. Surg Endosc 15(11):1282–1288Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaggioli A, Breining R (2001) Perception and cognition in immersive virtual reality. In: Communications through virtual technologies: identity, community and technology in the communication age. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 71–86Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jorke H, Simonk A, Fritz M (2008) Advanced stereo projection using interference filters. In: 2008 3DTV Conference: The true vision—capture, transmission and display of 3D video: 28–30 May 2008 2008 177–180Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srivastava AK, de la Tocnaye JD, Dupont L (2010) Liquid crystal active glasses for 3D cinema. J Disp Technol 6(10):522–530Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dodgson NA (2005) Autostereoscopic 3D displays. Computer 38(8):31–36Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wegner K, Grajek T, Domanski M (2014) Comparison of 3D video subjective quality evaluated using polarisation and autostereoscopic displays. Electron Lett 50(18):1283–1285Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim T, Kim J, Kim S, Cho S, Lee S (2017) Perceptual crosstalk prediction on autostereoscopic 3D display. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 27(7):1450–1463Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arino JJ, Juan MC, Gil-Gomez J, Molla R (2014) A comparative study using an autostereoscopic display with augmented and virtual reality. Behav Inf Technol 33(6):646–655Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Surman P, Day S, Aksit K, Urey H, Benjamin J, Jain K, Hao C (2013) Single and multi-user head tracked glasses-free 3D displays. In: Proceeding of 3DTV Vision Beyond Depth Conference, Aberdeen, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holliman NS, Dodgson NA, Favalora GE, Pockett L (2011) Three-dimensional displays: a review and applications analysis. IEEE Trans Broadcast 57(2):362–371Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landau E. Can 3-D movies, television make you sick? In: CNN Website. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/23/3d.vision.brain/index.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2018
  24. 24.
    Samsung: Viewing TV using the 3D function. In: Samsung Website. https://www.samsung.com/in/support/tv-audio-video/how-to-view-the-picture-in-3d-mode/. Accessed 15 Mar 2018
  25. 25.
    Yang SN, Schlieski T, Selmins B, Cooper SC, Doherty RA, Corriveau PJ, Sheedy JE (2012) Stereoscopic viewing and reported perceived immersion and symptoms. Optom Vis Sci 89(7):1068–1080Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hecht J (2011) 3-D TV and movies: exploring the hangover effect. Opt Photonics News 22(2):20–27Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ujike H, Watanabe H (2011) Effects of stereoscopic presentation on visually induced motion sickness. In: International Society for Optics and Photonics: 2011; San Francisco Airport, California, United States: SPIE, 14Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Read JCA, Bohr I (2014) User experience while viewing stereoscopic 3D television. Ergonomics 57(8):1140–1153Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Solimini AG (2013) Are there side effects to watching 3D movies? A prospective crossover observational study on visually induced motion sickness. PLoS One 8(2):e56160Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Solimini AG, Mannocci A, Di Thiene D, La Torre G (2012) A survey of visually induced symptoms and associated factors in spectators of three dimensional stereoscopic movies. BMC Public Health 12:779–779Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hwang AD, Peli E (2014) Instability of the perceived world while watching 3D stereoscopic imagery: a likely source of motion sickness symptoms. i-Perception 5(6):515–535Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shibata T, Kim J, Hoffman DM, Banks MS (2011) The zone of comfort: predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. J Vision 11(8):11–11Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoffmann H, Ruiz-Schirinzi R, Goldblum D, Dell-Kuster S, Oertli D, Hahnloser D, Rosenthal R (2015) Impact of examinees’ stereopsis and near visual acuity on laparoscopic virtual reality performance. Surg Today 45(10):1280–1290Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoffman DM, Girshick AR, Akeley K, Banks MS (2008) Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. J Vision 8(3):33.31–3330Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reynolds W, Jr. (2001) The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 5(1):89–94Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Becker H, Melzer A, Schurr MO, Buess G (1993) 3-D video techniques in endoscopic surgery. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 1(1):40–46Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schwab K, Smith R, Brown V, Whyte M, Jourdan I (2017) Evolution of stereoscopic imaging in surgery and recent advances. World J Gastrointest Endosc 9(8):368–377Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaufman Y, Sharon A, Klein O, Spiegel D, Auslander R, Lissak A (2007) The three-dimensional “insect eye” laparoscopic imaging system-a prospective randomized study. Gynecol Surg 4(1):31–34Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Bergen P, Kunert W, Buess GF (1999) Three-dimensional (3-D) video systems: bi-channel or single-channel optics? Endoscopy 31(9):732–737Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wenzl R, Lehner R, Vry U, Pateisky N, Sevelda P, Husslein P (1994) Three-dimensional video-endoscopy: clinical use in gynaecological laparoscopy. Lancet 344(8937):1621–1622Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chan AC, Chung SC, Yim AP, Lau JY, Ng EK, Li AK (1997) Comparison of two-dimensional vs three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 11(5):438–440Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dion YM, Gaillard F (1997) Visual integration of data and basic motor skills under laparoscopy. Influence of 2-D and 3-D video-camera systems. Surg Endosc 11(10):995–1000Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 351(9098):248–251Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19(10):1212–1215Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Byrn JC, Schluender S, Divino CM, Conrad J, Gurland B, Shlasko E, Szold A (2007) Three-dimensional imaging improves surgical performance for both novice and experienced operators using the Da Vinci robot system. Am J Surg 193(4):519–522Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A (2012) 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 26(5):1454–1460Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kong SH, Oh BM, Yoon H, Ahn HS, Lee HJ, Chung SG, Shiraishi N, Kitano S, Yang HK (2010) Comparison of two- and three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic performance: a novel 3D system with one camera. Surg Endosc 24(5):1132–1143Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pietrzak P, Arya M, Joseph JV, Patel HR (2006) Three-dimensional visualization in laparoscopic surgery. BJU Int 98(2):253–256Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Taffinder N, Smith SG, Huber J, Russell RC, Darzi A (1999) The effect of a second-generation 3D endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 13(11):1087–1092Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shah J, Buckley D, Frisby J, Darzi A (2003) Depth cue reliance in surgeons and medical students. Surg Endosc 17(9):1472–1474Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Smith R, Schwab K, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M, Jourdan I (2014) Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg 101(11):1453–1459Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Taffinder N, Smith SG, Huber J et al (1999) The effect of a second-generation 3D endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 13:1087–1092Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yamauchi Y, Shinohara K (2005) Effect of binocular stereopsis on surgical manipulation performance and fatigue when using a stereoscopic endoscope. Stud Health Technol Inform 111:611–614Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Birkett DH (1994) Three-dimensional laparoscopy in gastrointestinal surgery. Int Surg 79:357–360Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (2000) Influence of two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging on endoscopic bowel suturing. World J Surg 24(4):444–448; (discussion 448–449)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mueller MD, Camartin C, Dreher E, Hanggi W (1999) Three-dimensional laparoscopy. Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 13(5):469–472Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    McDougall EM, Soble JJ, Wolf JS Jr, Nakada SY, Elashry OM, Clayman RV (1996) Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic video systems. J Endourol 10(4):371–374Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hofmeister J, Frank TG, Cuschieri A, Wade NJ (2001) Perceptual aspects of two-dimensional and stereoscopic display techniques in endoscopic surgery: review and current problems. Semin Laparosc Surg 8(1):12–24Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Geis WP (1996) Head-mounted video monitor for global visual access in mini-invasive surgery. An initial report. Surg Endosc 10(7):768–770Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bajura M, Fuchs H, Ohbuchi R (1992) Merging virtual objects with the real world: seeing ultrasound imagery within the patient. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM, 203–210Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Vogt S, Khamene A, Sauer F (2006) Reality augmentation for medical procedures: system architecture, single camera marker tracking, and system evaluation. Int J Comput Vision 70(2):179Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cheah WK, Lenzi JE, So J, Dong F, Kum CK, Goh P (2001) Evaluation of a head-mounted display (HMD) in the performance of a simulated laparoscopic task. Surg Endosc 15(9):990–991Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Biocca FA, Rolland JP (1998) Virtual eyes can rearrange your body: adaptation to visual displacement in see-through, head-mounted displays. Presence 7(3):262–277Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mueller-Richter UDA, Limberger A, Weber P, Ruprecht KW, Spitzer W, Schilling M (2004) Possibilities and limitations of current stereo-endoscopy. Surg Endosc Interv Tech 18(6):942–947Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Minnich DJ, Schell SR (2003) Evaluation of face-mounted binocular video display for laparoscopy: outcomes of psychometric skills testing and surgeon satisfaction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13(5):333–338Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Patel HR, Ribal MJ, Arya M, Nauth-Misir R, Joseph JV (2007) Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three-dimensional visualization? A validated assessment. Urology 70(1):47–49Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Maithel SK, Villegas L, Stylopoulos N, Dawson S, Jones DB (2005) Simulated laparoscopy using a head-mounted display vs traditional video monitor: an assessment of performance and muscle fatigue. Surg Endosc 19(3):406–411Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surgical Simulation Research Lab, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations