Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 16, 2017; 9(8): 368-377
Published online Aug 16, 2017. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v9.i8.368
Table 3 Dual channel laparoscopes - Screen projection and glasses
Ref.YearProjection system for 3DWho and what assessedObjective outcomesSubjective outcomes
Birkett et al[26]1994Active shuttering screen and Active glasses then polarised glasses vs 2D10 Subjects? experience 2 × lab based skills tasksTime take for repetitive cycles; No difference in simples task, reduced time in complex taskNA
Peitgen et al[29]1996Active shuttering screen and glasses60 subjects (20 novices, 20 beginners, 20 advanced laparoscopic surgeons) 2 × lab based skills tasksTime and accuracy of tasks Both significantly improved in 3D, independent of experienceNA
Wentink et al[30]2002Active shuttering screen and polarised glasses vs TFT display vs projection vs standard (2D)8 surgeons with laparoscopic experience Lab based skills taskTime for task completion, 10 repetitions but only 2 surgeons per visual system No improvement with 3DFelt image quality poorer with 3D
Jourdan et al[31]2004Active shuttering screen and glasses8 experienced laparoscopic surgeons 5 × lab based skills tasksTime and errors, 10 repetitions each, in each visual system Significant improvement in both in 3DNA
Feng et al[32]2010Active shuttering screen and polarised glasses (SD vs 2D SD vs 2D HD)27 subjects (16 novices, 11 with varying laparoscopic experience) Lab based skills taskTime and economy of movement Time significantly improved over both 2D systems in 3D, economy of movement improved in 3D vs HD, not SD 2DFelt improved depth perception in 3D
Hubber et al[33]2003Prototype passive polarising screen and glasses16 Medical Students (novices) Lab based skills tasksTime and performance (ICSAD) Improvements in 3D significant over 2DNA
Honeck et al[34]2012Passive polarising screen and glassed10 novices and 10 experienced laparoscopic surgeons 5 × lab based skills tasksTime and errors (1 × repetition, in only 1 of the visual systems) No significant improvement in time, reduction in errors significant in both groups in 3DNo impairment felt in subjective feedback when using the 3D system
Smith et al[35]2012Passive polarising screen and glassed20 novices 4 × lab based skills tasksTime and errors (10 repetitions of each task in each visual condition) Significant improvement in time and errors in 3DNA
Bilgen et al[36]2013Passive polarising screen and glassed3 surgeons Clinical - 11 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in 3D (compared to 11 performed retrospectively in 2D)Time Significant reduction in time when performed in 3D, compared to case matched lap choles performed previously in 2DNA
Sinha et al[37]2013Passive polarising screen and glassedRetrospective analysis of 451 clinical gynaecological surgery performed in 3D Case matched assessment of 200 hysterectomies performed in 3D vs 2DTime Significant reduction in operating time and morcellation time when performed in 3DNA
Cicione et al[38]2013Passive polarising screen and glassed33 subjects (10 experts and 23 novices) 5 × lab based skills tasks (Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills)Time and errors Overall, significant improvement in time and errors (although experts only improved time in 1 task in 3D)Subjective Questionnaire - felt tasks were easier in 3D universally
Lusch et al[39]2014Passive polarising screen and glassed24 subjects (10 medical students, 7 residents, 7 expert surgeons) 6 × lab based skills tasksTime and errors 4 out of 5 skills tasks had significantly improved time and errors when done in 3D, independent on experienceOptical resolution and depth perception improved in 3D
Smith et al[40]2014Passive polarising screen and glassed20 experienced surgeons 4 × lab based skills tasksTime and errors (10 repetitions of each task in each visual condition) Significant improvement in time and errors in 3DSubjective assessments using NASA Task Load Index - improvements with 3D all sections