Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of 2D and autostereoscopic 3D visualization during mixed reality simulation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In general minimally invasive surgical procedures, surgeons are tied to 2D visualization, leading to the loss of depth perception. This can lead to large mental load for the surgeons and may be responsible for the long learning curve. To restore the sense of depth, this study investigated the use and benefits of an autostereoscopic (3D) display during a simulated laparoscopic task.

Methods

A mixed reality simulator was developed for comparing the performance of participants while using 2D and autostereoscopic 3D visualization. An electromagnetic sensor was mounted on a physical instrument, and its pose was mapped to the virtual instrument. The virtual scene was developed using Simulation Open Framework Architecture (SOFA). Finite element modeling was used to calculate interaction forces, which were then mapped to visual soft tissue deformation.

Results

Ten non-expert participants completed a virtual laparoscopic task, where the subjects were asked to contact eighteen target areas distributed on the surface of the vagina, both in 2D and 3D. Results showed an improvement with 3D vision in task completion time (–16%), total traveled distance (–25%) and errors made (–14%). There was no difference in the average contact forces between the vagina and the instrument. Only the difference in time and forces were shown to be statistically significant.

Conclusion

Overall, autostereoscopic 3D showed superiority over conventional 2D visualization. The traveled trajectory increased in 2D as the instrument was retracted more between the targets to avoid contact. The 2D and 3D deformation upon contact seems not to contribute differently to force perception. However, the participants only had visual feedback, but no haptic feedback. Therefore, it could be interesting to include haptic feedback in a future study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Vallancien G (2009) The current status of laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol 55(5):1089–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alleblas CCJ, de Man AM, van den Haak L, Vierhout ME, Jansen FW, Nieboer TE (2017) Prevalence of Musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery. Ann Surg 266(6):905–920. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamad GG, Curet M (2010) Minimally invasive surgery. Am J Surg 199(2):263–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJSURG.2009.05.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210(3):306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAMCOLLSURG.2009.10.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roh HF, Nam SH, Kim JM (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191628

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gómez E, Carrasco-Valiente J, Valero-Rosa J, Campos Hernández JP, Anglada-Curado F, Carazo-Carazo J, Font-Ugalde P, Tapia MJ (2014) Impact of 3d vision on mental workload and laparoscopic performance in inexperienced subjects. Acta Urol Espanol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2014.09.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tanagho Y, Andriole G, Paradis A, Madison K, Sandhu G, Varela E, Benway B (2012) 2d versus 3d visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sengül A, Barsi A, Ribeiro D, Bleuler H (2013) Role of holographic displays and stereovision displays in patient safety and robotic surgery. Adv Intell Syst Comput 194:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33932-5-14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jourdan I, Dutson E, Garcia A, Vleugels T, Leroy J, Mutter D, Marescaux J (2004) Stereoscopic vision provides a significant advantage for precision robotic laparoscopy. Br J Surg 91:879–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4549

  10. Bergen P, Kunert W, Bessell J, Buess G (1998) Comparative study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional vision systems for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 12:948–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900754

  11. Taffinder N, Smith S, Huber J, Russell R, Darzi A (1999) The effect of a second-generation 3d endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 13:1087–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tevaearai Stahel H, Mueller X, Segesser L (2000) 3-D vision improves performance in a pelvic trainer. Endoscopy 32:464–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kong S-H, Oh B-M, Yoon H, Ahn H, Lee H-J, Chung S, Shiraishi N, Kitano S, Yang H-K (2009) Comparison of two- and three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic performance: a novel 3D system with one camera. Surg Endosc 24:1132–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0740-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Silvestri M, Simi M, Cavallotti C, Vatteroni M, Ferrari V, Freschi C, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Dario P (2011) Autostereoscopic three-dimensional viewer evaluation through comparison with conventional interfaces in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 18(3):223–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350611411491. (PMID: 21742655)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Urey H, Chellappan K, Erden E, Surman P (2011) State of the art in stereoscopic and autostereoscopic displays. In: Proceedings of the IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2010.2098351

  16. Nomura K, Kikuchi D, Kaise M, Iizuka T, Ochiai Y, Suzuki Y, Fukuma Y, Tanaka M, Okamoto Y, Yamashita S, Matsui A, Mitani T, Hoteya S (2019) Comparison of 3D endoscopy and conventional 2D endoscopy in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo animal study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06726-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomsen MN, Lang RD (2004) An experimental comparison of 3-Dimensional and 2-Dimensional endoscopic systems in a model. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 20(4):419–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2004.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guanà R, Ferrero L, Garofalo S, Cerrina A, Cussa D, Arezzo A, Schleef J (2017) Skills comparison in pediatric residents using a 2-Dimensional versus a 3-Dimensional high-definition camera in a pediatric laparoscopic simulator. J Surg Educ 74(4):644–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSURG.2016.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Romero-Loera S, Cárdenas-Lailson LE, De La Concha-Bermejillo F, Crisanto-Campos BA, Valenzuela-Salazar C, Moreno-Portillo M (2016) Skills comparison using a 2D vs 3D laparoscopic simulator. Cirugia Y Cirujanos 84(1):37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIRCIR.2015.06.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Blavier A, Gaudissart Q, Cadière GB, Nyssen AS (2007) Comparison of learning curves and skill transfer between classical and robotic laparoscopy according to the viewing conditions: implications for training. Am J Surg 194(1):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJSURG.2006.10.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. De Smet J, Poliakov V, Niu K, Fornier J, Ahmad MA, Ourak M, Viktor V, Deprest J, Vander Poorten E ( 2019) Evaluating the Potential Benefit of Autostereoscopy in Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy through VR Simulation. In: 19th International conference on advanced robotics (ICAR), pp. 572– 577

  22. Turner LC, Kantartzis K, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP (2014) The effect of age on complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral Colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 25(9):1251–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2391-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS (2001) Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obst Gynecol 98(4):646–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01472-7

  24. SOFA. https://www.sofa-framework.org/ Accessed 2023-01-05

  25. Omari EA, Varghese T, Kliewer MA, Harter J, Hartenbach EM (2015) Dynamic and quasi-static mechanical testing for characterization of the viscoelastic properties of human uterine tissue. J Biomech 48(10):1730–1736

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Murray JW (2017) Building virtual reality with unity and steamvr. CRC Press, Boca Raton

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen, Belgium, with grant number HBC.2020.2246.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 300, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Viktor Vörös, Jef De Smet, Mouloud Ourak, Vladimir Poliakov & Emmanuel Vander Poorten

  2. Healthcare Division, Barco NV, Beneluxpark 21, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium

    Viktor Vörös & Tom Kimpe

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Jan Deprest

Authors
  1. Viktor Vörös
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jef De Smet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mouloud Ourak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vladimir Poliakov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Deprest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tom Kimpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emmanuel Vander Poorten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viktor Vörös.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vörös, V., De Smet, J., Ourak, M. et al. Comparison of 2D and autostereoscopic 3D visualization during mixed reality simulation. Int J CARS 18, 1679–1686 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02876-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02876-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation