Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An assessment of the new generation three-dimensional high definition laparoscopic vision system on surgical skills: a randomized prospective study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Two-dimensional (2D) view is known to cause practical difficulties for surgeons in conventional laparoscopy. Our goal was to evaluate whether the new-generation, Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Vision System (3D LVS) provides greater benefit in terms of execution time and error number during the performance of surgical tasks.

Methods

This study tests the hypothesis that the use of the new generation 3D LVS can significantly improve technical ability on complex laparoscopic tasks in an experimental model. Twenty-four participants (8 experienced, 8 minimally experienced, and 8 inexperienced) were evaluated for 10 different tasks in terms of total execution time and error number. The 4-point lickert scale was used for subjective assessment of the two imaging modalities.

Results

All tasks were completed by all participants. Statistically significant difference was determined between 3D and 2D systems in the tasks of bead transfer and drop, suturing, and pick-and-place in the inexperienced group; in the task of passing through two circles with the needle in the minimally experienced group; and in the tasks of bead transfer and drop, suturing and passing through two circles with the needle in the experienced group. Three-dimensional imaging was preferred over 2D in 6 of the 10 subjective criteria questions on 4-point lickert scale.

Conclusions

The majority of the tasks were completed in a shorter time using 3D LVS compared to 2D LVS. The subjective Likert-scale ratings from each group also demonstrated a clear preference for 3D LVS. New 3D LVS has the potential to improve the learning curve, and reduce the operating time and error rate during the performances of laparoscopic surgeons. Our results suggest that the new-generation 3D HD LVS will be helpful for surgeons in laparoscopy (Clinical Trial ID: NCT01799577, Protocol ID: BEHGynobs-4).

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bhayani SB, Andriole GL (2005) Three-dimensional (3D) vision: does it improve laparoscopic skills? An assessment of a 3D head-mounted visualization system. Rev Urol 7:211–214

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chan AC, Chung SC, Yim AP et al (1997) Comparison of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 11:438–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Byrn JC, Schluender S, Divino CM et al (2007) Three-dimensional imaging improves surgical performance for both novice and experienced operators using the da Vinci Robot System. Am J Surg 193:519–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ohuchida K, Kenmotsu H, Yamamoto A, Sawada K, Hayami T, Morooka K, Hoshino H, Uemura M, Konishi K, Yoshida D, Maeda T, Ieiri S, Tanoue K, Tanaka M, Hashizume M (2009) The effect of CyberDome, a novel three-dimensional dome-shaped display system, on laparoscopic procedures. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 4(2):125–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Becker H, Melzer A, Schurr MO, Buess G (1993) 3D video techniques in endoscopic surgery. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 1(40–46):2

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cicione A, Autorino R, Breda A, De Sio M, Damiano R, Fusco F, Greco F, Carvalho-Dias E, Mota P, Nogueira C, Pinho P, Mirone V, Correia-Pinto J, Rassweiler J, Lima E (2013) Three-dimensional versus standard laparoscopy: comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology 82(6):1444–1450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel HRH, Ribal MJ, Arya M, Nauth-Misir R, Joseph JV (2007) Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three-dimensional visualization? a validated assessment original research article. Urology 70(1):47–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Birkett DH, Josephs LG, Este-McDonald J (1994) A new 3D laparoscope in gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Endosc 8:1448–1451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van Bergen P, Kunert W, Schurr MO et al (1996) Comparative study of endoscopic 2D and 3D imaging systems. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 113:634–637

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 13:1087–1092

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sun CC, Chiu AW, Chen KK et al (2000) Assessment of a three-dimensional operating system with skill tests in a pelvic trainer. Urol Int 64:154–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buchs NC, Volonte F, Pugin F, Toso C, Morel P (2013) Three-dimensional laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation. Surg Endosc 27:692–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Durrani AF, Preminger GM (1994) Advanced endoscopic imaging: 3D laparoscopic endoscopy. Surg Technol Int 3:141–147

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thomsen MN, Lang RD (2004) An experimental comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional endoscopic systems in a model. Arthroscopy 20:419–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A (2012) 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardized phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 26:1454–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Blavier A, Gaudissart Q, Cadiere 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 194:115–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Randomised study on influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 351:248–251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Coren S, Ward LM (1989) Sensation and perception. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Orlando, pp 17–19

    Google Scholar 

  20. Khoshabeh R, Juang J, Talamini MA, Nguyen TQ (2012) Multiview glasses-free 3D laparoscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59(10):2859–2865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gofrit ON, Mikhail AA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL (2008) Surgeons’ perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology 71:404–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG, Madison KM, Sandhu GS, Varela JE, Benway BM (2012) 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(9):865–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Crosthwaite G, Chung T, Dunkley P, Shimi S, Cuschieri A (1995) Comparison of direct vision and electronic two- and three-dimensional display systems on surgical task efficiency in endoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 82:849–851

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rabin J (1995) Two eyes are better than one: binocular enhancement in the contrast domain. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 15:45–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pietrabissa A, Scarcello E, Mosca F (1994) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video system for the trained endoscopic surgeon and the beginner. End Surg 2:315–317

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cagenello R, Arditi A (1993) Binocular enhancement of visual acuity. J Opt Soc Am A 10:1841–1848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jones DB, Brewer JD, Soper NJ (1996) The influence of three-dimensional video systems on laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc 6:191–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P et al (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60:39–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Danis J (1996) Theoretical basis for camera control in teleoperating. Surg Endosc 10:804–808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mueller MD, Camartin C, Dreher E et al (1999) Three-dimensional laparoscopy: gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 13:469–472

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ramanathan R, Salamanca JIM, Mandhani A, Leung RA, Rao SR, Berryhill R, Tewari A (2009) Does three-dimensional (3D) visualization improve the quality of assistance during robotic radical prostatectomy? World J Urol 27:95–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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):1132–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bilgen K, Ustun M, Karakahya M, Isik S, Sengul S, Cetinkunar S, Kucukpinar TH (2013) Comparison of 3D imaging and 2D imaging for performance time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(2):180–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, Horgan S, Candinas D, Vorburger SA (2012) Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 26(10):2961–2968

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all participants involved in the study including Riza Kutanis, Atilla Celik, Gülcin Ercan, Baris Sana, Hüseyin Bilge, Sinan Binboga, Rumeysa Ilkar, and Elif Gür of the Department of General Surgery; Serdar Aykan of the Department of Urology; Ulviye Hanli, Hikmet Kocer, Alper Tosun, Hüseyin Dayan, Banu Güler, Eylem Odacilar, Selim Oztürk, Gülümser Ece Aksakal, Elif Cansu Gündogdu, and Merve Ozkan of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and OR nurses and staff including Sevil Topuz, Gulluhan Erbas, and Yavuz Karayilan.

Disclosures

Drs. Usta, Ozkaynak, Kovalak, Ergul, Naki and Kaya have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Bagcilar, Istanbul, Turkey

    Taner A. Usta, Aysel Ozkaynak, Ebru Kovalak, Erdinc Ergul & Erdal Kaya

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Park Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    M. Murat Naki

Authors
  1. Taner A. Usta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aysel Ozkaynak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ebru Kovalak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erdinc Ergul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Murat Naki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Erdal Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taner A. Usta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Usta, T.A., Ozkaynak, A., Kovalak, E. et al. An assessment of the new generation three-dimensional high definition laparoscopic vision system on surgical skills: a randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc 29, 2305–2313 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3949-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3949-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation