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 5 Other prototype projection systems
Ref.YearProjection system for 3DWho and what assessedObjective outcomesSubjective outcomes
Taffinder et al[45]1999Dual channel scope with autostereoscopic/glass free screen28 subjects (16 novices and 12 experienced laparoscopic surgeons) Novices = basic grasping and cutting lab based skills Experienced = suturing and complex cutting lab based skillsTime and performance score (ICSAD assessment tool) Significant improvement in 3D over 2D laparoscopyNo side effects reported with 3D
Ohuchida et al[46]2009Dual channel scope with “Cyberdome” projection system23 novices 6 × lab based skills tasksTime, errors and performance Significant improvement in all parameters in 3D with cyberdome over 2DNA
Storz et al[47]2011Dual-channel scope + wavelength multiplex camera and monitor with polarising glasses30 subjects (20 medical students and 10 experienced laparoscopic surgeons) 5 × lab based skills tasksTime and errors In 4 out 5 tasks, significant reduction in time in 3D, in 4out of 5 tasks, significant reduction in errorsNA
Khoshabeh et al[48]2012Dual-channel scope + Multiview autostereoscopic display/glass free screen3 experienced laparoscopic surgeons 2 × lab based skills tasksTime and errors Reduced time and errors using 3DNA