Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 6/2008

01-06-2008

Comparison of a supplemental wide field of view versus a single field of view with zoom on performance in minimally invasive surgery

Authors: Alex Cao, R. Darin Ellis, Elizabeth D. Klein, Gregory W. Auner, Michael D. Klein, Abhilash K. Pandya

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 6/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The limited space and high magnification involved in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can cause surgeons to lose sight of an instrument while performing tasks such as suturing and knot-tying. A current strategy employed to locate the instrument is zooming out and in with the endoscope, which can be a time-intensive and iterative task. This study investigates the use of a supplemental wide field of view (FOV) via a second endoscope for locating an instrument outside the FOV in a MIS setting.

Methods

Ten surgically naïve subjects performed a simple aimed movement task with either hand (dominant or nondominant) under two display conditions: (1) conventional single monitor with zoom, and (2) supplemental wide FOV monitor with no zoom. The task emulated the need to locate an instrument outside the surgeon’s FOV and return it to a home position.

Results

The supplemental wide FOV produced significantly faster times [F(3,716) = 173.2, p < 0.001)] compared to a single monitor. The task was accomplished most quickly with the dual monitor with the dominant hand, followed by dual monitor with nondominant hand followed by a single monitor with either hand. There were also significantly fewer errors (t = 3.734, df = 9, p = 0.005) with the supplemental wide FOV. None of the subjects were slower with the dual monitor, and all but one had fewer errors. The variance for both task times and errors were also significantly smaller (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively) with the supplemental wide FOV indicating that subjects performed with increased reliability.

Conclusion

The supplemental wide FOV gave the subjects the ability to see their instrument at all times providing a more efficient display than zooming out and in. This enabled faster times and fewer errors while allowing the user to perform the task with more consistency.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW (1995) Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154:2134–2136PubMedCrossRef Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW (1995) Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154:2134–2136PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kondraske GV, Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Fischer CA, Tesfay ST, Taneja R, Brown RJ, Jones DB (2002) Surgeon workload and motion efficiency with robot and human laparoscopic camera control. Surg Endosc 16:1523–1527PubMedCrossRef Kondraske GV, Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Fischer CA, Tesfay ST, Taneja R, Brown RJ, Jones DB (2002) Surgeon workload and motion efficiency with robot and human laparoscopic camera control. Surg Endosc 16:1523–1527PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Nebot PB, Jain Y, Haylett K, Stone R, McCloy R (2003) Comparison of task performance of the camera-holder robots EndoAssist and Aesop. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 13:334–338PubMedCrossRef Nebot PB, Jain Y, Haylett K, Stone R, McCloy R (2003) Comparison of task performance of the camera-holder robots EndoAssist and Aesop. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 13:334–338PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Yavuz Y, Ystgaard B, Skogvoll E, Marvik R (2000) A comparative experimental study evaluating the performance of surgical robots Aesop and Endosista. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:163–167PubMedCrossRef Yavuz Y, Ystgaard B, Skogvoll E, Marvik R (2000) A comparative experimental study evaluating the performance of surgical robots Aesop and Endosista. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:163–167PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: Is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19:1212–1215PubMedCrossRef Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: Is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19:1212–1215PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Minnich DJ, Schell SR (2003) Evaluation of face-mounted binocular video display for laparoscopy: Outcomes of psychometric skills testing and surgeon satisfaction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:333–338PubMedCrossRef Minnich DJ, Schell SR (2003) Evaluation of face-mounted binocular video display for laparoscopy: Outcomes of psychometric skills testing and surgeon satisfaction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:333–338PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Herron DM, Lantis JC II, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg SD (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display. A quantitative evaluation of advanced laparoscopic viewing technologies. Surg Endosc 13:751–755PubMedCrossRef Herron DM, Lantis JC II, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg SD (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display. A quantitative evaluation of advanced laparoscopic viewing technologies. Surg Endosc 13:751–755PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Thomsen MN, Lang RD (2004) An experimental comparison of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional endoscopic systems in a model. Arthroscopy 20:419–423PubMedCrossRef Thomsen MN, Lang RD (2004) An experimental comparison of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional endoscopic systems in a model. Arthroscopy 20:419–423PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Maithel SK, Villegas L, Stylopoulos N, Dawson S, Jones DB (2005) Simulated laparoscopy using a head-mounted display vs. traditional video monitor: an assessment of performance and muscle fatigue. Surg Endosc 19:406–411PubMedCrossRef Maithel SK, Villegas L, Stylopoulos N, Dawson S, Jones DB (2005) Simulated laparoscopy using a head-mounted display vs. traditional video monitor: an assessment of performance and muscle fatigue. Surg Endosc 19:406–411PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Erfanian K, Luks FI, Kurkchubasche AG, Wesselhoeft CW Jr., Tracy TF Jr. (2003) In-line image projection accelerates task performance in laparoscopic appendectomy. J Pediatr Surg 38:1059–1062PubMedCrossRef Erfanian K, Luks FI, Kurkchubasche AG, Wesselhoeft CW Jr., Tracy TF Jr. (2003) In-line image projection accelerates task performance in laparoscopic appendectomy. J Pediatr Surg 38:1059–1062PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Ann Surg 227:481–484PubMedCrossRef Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Ann Surg 227:481–484PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Brown S, Frank T, El Shallaly G, Cuschieri A (2003) Comparison of conventional and gaze-down imaging in laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 17:586–590PubMedCrossRef Brown S, Frank T, El Shallaly G, Cuschieri A (2003) Comparison of conventional and gaze-down imaging in laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 17:586–590PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1999) Influence of the optical axis-to-target view angle on endoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 13:371–375PubMedCrossRef Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1999) Influence of the optical axis-to-target view angle on endoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 13:371–375PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Cao A, Ellis RD, Composto A, Pandya AK, Klein MD (2006) Supplemental wide field-of-view monitor improves performance in surgical telerobotic movement time. Int J Med Robot 2:364–369PubMed Cao A, Ellis RD, Composto A, Pandya AK, Klein MD (2006) Supplemental wide field-of-view monitor improves performance in surgical telerobotic movement time. Int J Med Robot 2:364–369PubMed
15.
go back to reference Dakin G, Gagner M (2003) Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endosc 17:574–579PubMedCrossRef Dakin G, Gagner M (2003) Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endosc 17:574–579PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Maniar HS, Council ML, Prasad SM, Prasad SM, Chu C, Damiano RJ Jr. (2005) Comparison of skill training with robotic systems and traditional endoscopy: Implications on training and adoption. J Surg Res 125:23–29PubMedCrossRef Maniar HS, Council ML, Prasad SM, Prasad SM, Chu C, Damiano RJ Jr. (2005) Comparison of skill training with robotic systems and traditional endoscopy: Implications on training and adoption. J Surg Res 125:23–29PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Prasad SM, Prasad SM, Maniar HS, Chu C, Schuessler RB, Damiano RJ Jr. (2004) Surgical robotics: Impact of motion scaling on task performance. J Am Coll Surg 199:863–868PubMedCrossRef Prasad SM, Prasad SM, Maniar HS, Chu C, Schuessler RB, Damiano RJ Jr. (2004) Surgical robotics: Impact of motion scaling on task performance. J Am Coll Surg 199:863–868PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Allaf ME, Jackman SV, Schulam PG, Cadeddu JA, Lee BR, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1998) Laparoscopic visual field. Voice vs. foot pedal interfaces for control of the AESOP robot. Surg Endosc 12:1415–1418PubMedCrossRef Allaf ME, Jackman SV, Schulam PG, Cadeddu JA, Lee BR, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1998) Laparoscopic visual field. Voice vs. foot pedal interfaces for control of the AESOP robot. Surg Endosc 12:1415–1418PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of a supplemental wide field of view versus a single field of view with zoom on performance in minimally invasive surgery
Authors
Alex Cao
R. Darin Ellis
Elizabeth D. Klein
Gregory W. Auner
Michael D. Klein
Abhilash K. Pandya
Publication date
01-06-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 6/2008
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9627-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2008

Surgical Endoscopy 6/2008 Go to the issue