Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The viewpoint-specific failure of modern 3D displays in laparoscopic surgery

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Surgeons conventionally assume the optimal viewing position during 3D laparoscopic surgery and may not be aware of the potential hazards to team members positioned across different suboptimal viewing positions. The first aim of this study was to map the viewing positions within a standard operating theatre where individuals may experience visual ghosting (i.e. double vision images) from crosstalk. The second aim was to characterize the standard viewing positions adopted by instrument nurses and surgical assistants during laparoscopic pelvic surgery and report the associated levels of visual ghosting and discomfort.

Methods

In experiment 1, 15 participants viewed a laparoscopic 3D display from 176 different viewing positions around the screen. In experiment 2, 12 participants (randomly assigned to four clinically relevant viewing positions) viewed laparoscopic suturing in a simulation laboratory. In both experiments, we measured the intensity of visual ghosting. In experiment 2, participants also completed the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire.

Results

We mapped locations within the dimensions of a standard operating theatre at which visual ghosting may result during 3D laparoscopy. Head height relative to the bottom of the image and large horizontal eccentricities away from the surface normal were important contributors to high levels of visual ghosting. Conventional viewing positions adopted by instrument nurses yielded high levels of visual ghosting and severe discomfort.

Conclusions

The conventional viewing positions adopted by surgical team members during laparoscopic pelvic operations are suboptimal for viewing 3D laparoscopic displays, and even short periods of viewing can yield high levels of discomfort.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sakata S et al. (2016) The conflicting evidence of three-dimensional displays in laparoscopy: a review of systems old and new. Ann Surg 263(2):234–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Woods, A.J. 2012 Crosstalk in stereoscopic displays: a review. J Electron Imaging 21(4)

  3. Yang SN et al. (2012) Stereoscopic viewing and reported perceived immersion and symptoms. Optom Vis Sci 89(7):1068–1080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Howarth PA (2011) Potential hazards of viewing 3-D stereoscopic television, cinema and computer games: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31(2):111–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Grove PM (2012) In: Zhu C, Zhao Y, Yu L, Tanimoto M (eds) The psychophysics of binocular vision, in 3D-TV system with depth-image-based rendering. Springer, New York, pp. 347–373

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lee CT, Lin HY, Tsai CH (2010) Designs of broadband and wide-view patterned polarizers for stereoscopic 3D displays. Opt Express 18(26):27079–27094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Poudel, S., et al. 2016 Impact of 3D in the training of basic laparoscopic skills and its transferability to 2D environment: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc

  8. Sakata S et al. (2016) The impact of three-dimensional imaging on polyp detection during colonoscopy: a proof of concept study. Gut 65(5):730–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jin, E.W., et al. 2005 Creating a comfortable stereoscopic viewing experience: effects of viewing distance and field of view on fusional range

  10. Kooi FL, Toet A (2004) Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays 25(2–3):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sakata, S., P.M. Grove, and A.L. Stevenson 2016 Effect of 3-dimensional vision on surgeons using the da vinci robot for laparoscopy: more than meets the eye. JAMA Surgery

  12. Zaroff CM, Knutelska M, Frumkes TE (2003) Variation in stereoacuity: normative description, fixation disparity, and the roles of aging and gender. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44(2):891–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stevens, S.S. 1975 Psychophysics. Transaction Publishers

  14. Kennedy RS et al. (1992) Use of a motion sickness history questionnaire for prediction of simulator sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 63(7):588–593

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Peters JH et al. (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135(1):21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kennedy RS, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG (1997) Disorientation and postural ataxia following flight simulation. Aviat Space Environ Med 68(1):13–17

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Solimini AG (2013) Are there side effects to watching 3D movies? A prospective crossover observational study on visually induced motion sickness. PLoS One 8(2):e56160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Laparoscopic displays were provided to us by Olympus Japan for the purpose of independent research. Dr. Sakata received financial assistance from the Avant Doctors in Training PhD Scholarship. The funding source had no role in study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, report writing or the decision to submit this paper for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Shinichiro Sakata, Marcus O. Watson & Andrew R. L. Stevenson

  2. Clinical Skills Development Service, Queensland Health, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Shinichiro Sakata, Andrew Hill & Marcus O. Watson

  3. Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Shinichiro Sakata & Andrew R. L. Stevenson

  4. School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Philip M. Grove, Andrew Hill & Marcus O. Watson

Authors
  1. Shinichiro Sakata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip M. Grove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcus O. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew R. L. Stevenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinichiro Sakata.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the University of Queensland (UQ) Human Research Ethics Committee.

Contributions

Dr. Sakata led the conceptualization, planning, execution of this research, analysis and writing the manuscript; Drs. Grove, Hill, Watson and Stevenson contributed to the planning, analysis and manuscript writing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sakata, S., Grove, P.M., Hill, A. et al. The viewpoint-specific failure of modern 3D displays in laparoscopic surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401, 1007–1018 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1495-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1495-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation