Kazuhiro Endo, MD, PhD1, Yoshinori Hosoya, MD, PhD1, Takumi Saito, MD, PhD2, Yasunaru Sakuma, MD, PhD1, Hisanaga Horie, MD, PhD1, Joji Kitayama1, Alan Lefor, MD, PhD1, Naohiro Sata, MD, PhD1. 1Jichi Medical university, 2Saiseikai Iwaizumi Hospital
Background: Due to difficulties with stereoscopic vision or unpleasant symptoms, some surgeons prefer not to use this technology. We investigated whether the three-dimensional (3D) laparoscope was more effective than the two-dimensional (2D) laparoscope for naïve operators performing a simple task. We also conducted a survey regarding preferences, impressions and any symptoms when viewing images using a 3D laparoscope compared to a 2D laparoscope.
Methods: 118 fourth year medical students participated in this study. The peg transfer task of the SAGES FLS program was selected, and performed continuously for two minutes. Subjects were given a document and a verbal explanation. They then observed a demonstration before being randomly divided into two groups. The 2Dto3D group performed the task with a 2D laparoscope before performing it with a 3D laparoscope. The 3Dto2D group performed the task with a 3D laparoscope before performing it with a 2D laparoscope. The ENDOEYE 3D Flex and the ENDOEYE HD (Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were used. The number of movements and drops were counted. We also conducted a survey regarding preferences of images, impressions regarding the endoscopic images and occurrence of any symptoms.
Results (Table): There were no significant differences in the number of peg movements or drops between two groups. While many subjects in the 3Dto2D group tended to prefer the three-dimensional images, the number of subjects who preferred the three-dimensional images was below 50% in both groups.(47% vs 41%) Many subjects assessed the three-dimensional laparoscope as being superior in terms of image visibility (69%) and depth perception (74%). However, many subjects also found eye fatigue (68%) and nausea (46%) to be unpleasant.
|
3Dto2D group(n=59) |
2Dto3D group(n=59) |
||
|
First trial: Number of movements |
8.41 | 8.34 |
p=0.88 |
|
Second trial: Number of movements |
9.59 | 10.32 | p=0.19 |
|
First trial: Number of drops |
0.64 | 0.75 | p=0.56 |
|
Second trial: Number of drops |
0.67 | 0.58 | p=0.48 |
Conclusions: 3D laparoscopy did not yield significantly different results for laparoscopy naïve operators performing the peg transfer task compared to 2D laparoscopy. 3D endoscopy was considered to have superior image visibility and depth perception. However, many subjects also experienced eye fatigue and nausea.
Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.
Abstract ID: 94816
Program Number: P384
Presentation Session: Poster Session (Non CME)
Presentation Type: Poster