Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of six display modes for a multi-resolution foveated laparoscope

  • New Technology
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To overcome the field of view and ergonomic limitations of standard laparoscopes, we are developing a multi-resolution foveated laparoscope that can simultaneously obtain both wide- and zoomed-in-view images through a single scope. To facilitate the effective access to the dual views of images with different resolution and field coverage acquired by our laparoscope, six different display modes have been developed. Each of the six display modes has inherent advantages and disadvantages. This study compares the six display modes through a human-subject experiment, which was conducted with an emulated laparoscope using a 4K camera.

Methods

Twenty-four subjects without medicine background performed three evaluation trials of a touching task with each of the display modes. Various objective measurements including task completion time, the number of collisions, gaze position, and tooltip position, and subjective preference for the display modes were recorded.

Results

For all the measurements except for task completion time and moving speed of tooltip, there were statistically significant differences among the display modes. Although the focus plus warped context view mode was selected as one of the least preferred modes, it showed the best task performance.

Conclusions

The unblocked wide context view was useful to provide a situational awareness even when it was severely distorted in some of the display modes, and information continuity played an important role in improving task performance. Moreover, the position change of viewing window coupled to the location of region of interest helped improve task performance, by providing an additional cue for spatial awareness.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cuschieri A (1991) Minimal access surgery and the future of interventional laparoscopy. Am J Surg 161:404–407

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Heemskerk J, Zandbergen R, Maessen JG, Greve JWM, Bouvy ND (2006) Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg Endosc 20:730–733

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Parker WH (2010) Understanding errors during laparoscopic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 37(3):437–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pierre SA, Ferrandino MN, Simmons WN, Fernandez C, Zhong P, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2009) High definition laparoscopy: objective assessment of performance characteristics and comparison with standard laparoscopy. J Endourol Soc 23:523–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim SP, Shah ND, Weight CJ, Thompson RH, Moriarty JP, Shippee ND, Costello BA, Boorjian SA, Leibovich BC (2011) Contemporary trends in nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in the United States: results from a population based cohort. J Urol 186(5):1779–1785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP (2005) Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS-J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 9:258–261

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tsai FS, Johnson D, Francis CS, Cho SH, Qiao W, Arianpour A, Mintz Y, Horgan S, Talamini M, Lo Y-H (2010) Fluidic lens laparoscopic zoom camera for minimally invasive surgery. J Biomed Opt 15(3):030504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goel R, Lomanto D (2012) Controversies in single-port laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(5):380–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Canes D, Desai MM, Aron M, Haber G-P, Goel R, Stein J, Kaouk JH, Gill IS (2008) Transumbilical single-port surgery: evolution and current status. Eur Urol 54:1020–1029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Qin Y, Hua H, Nguyen M (2013) Development of a laparoscope with multi-resolution foveation capability for minimally invasive surgery. Proceedings of SPIE 8573, design and quality for biomedical technologies VI, 857309, February 2–3 2013, San Francisco, CA

  11. Cockburn A, Karlson A, Bederson BB (2009) A review of overview + detail, zooming, and focus + context interfaces. ACM Comput Surv 41(1):2:1–2:31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Oh J-Y, Hua H (2008) Usability of multi-scale interfaces for 3D workbench displays. Presence 17(5):415–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jiang X, Zheng B, Atkins MS (2015) Video processing to locate the tooltip position in surgical eye-hand coordination tasks. Surg Innov 22(3):285–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu F, Gleicher M (2005) Automatic image retargeting with fisheye-view warping. Proc 18th Annu ACM symp user interface softw technol (UIST 05), October 23–27 2005, Seattle, WA, pp. 153–162

  15. Cao A, Ellis RD, Klein ED, Auner GW, Klein MD, Pandya AK (2008) Comparison of a supplemental wide field of view versus a single field of view with zoom on performance in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 22:1445–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shah RD, Cao A, Golenberg L, Ellis RD, Auner GW, Pandya AK, Klein MD (2009) Performance of basic manipulation and intracorporeal suturing tasks in a robotic surgical system: single- versus dual-monitor views. Surg Endosc 23:727–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hornbæk K, Frøkjær E (2003) Reading patterns and usability in visualizations of electronic documents. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 10(2):119–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gutwin C, Skopik A (2003) Fisheye views are good for large steering tasks. Proc ACM SIGCHI Conf human factors in computing systems (CHI’03), April 05–10 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, pp. 201–208

  19. Liu C, Chapuis O, Beaudouin-Lafon M, Lecolinet E, Mackay W (2014) Effects of display size and navigation type on a classification task. Proc ACM SIGCHI Conf human factors in computing systems (CHI’14), April 26-May 01 2014, Toronto, ON, pp. 4147–4156

  20. Butscher S, Reiterer H (2016) Applying guidelines for the design of distortions on focus + context interfaces. Proc Int Working Conf advanced visual interfaces (AVI’16), June 07–10 2016, Bari, pp. 244–247

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant Award 1R01EB18921-01.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona, 1630 E University Blvd, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Sangyoon Lee & Hong Hua

  2. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

    Mike Nguyen

  3. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Arizona Simulation Technology and Education Center, Arizona Health Sciences Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

    Allan J. Hamilton

Authors
  1. Sangyoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hong Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mike Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allan J. Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sangyoon Lee or Hong Hua.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Hong Hua has a patent Multi-Resolution Foveated Endoscope/Laparoscope (pending) and a patent Optical Article and Illumination System for Endoscope (pending), and has no other related conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Drs. Sangyoon Lee, Mike Nguyen, and Allan J. Hamilton have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, S., Hua, H., Nguyen, M. et al. Comparison of six display modes for a multi-resolution foveated laparoscope. Surg Endosc 33, 341–351 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6445-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6445-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation