These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparative study of endoscopic 2-D and 3-D imaging systems].
    Author: van Bergen P, Kunert W, Schurr MO, Buess GF.
    Journal: Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd; 1996; 113():634-7. PubMed ID: 9101956.
    Abstract:
    The aim of this comparative study is to gain subjective and objective data to determine for which operative task it is more useful to work with 3-D than 2-D vision systems, in order to show the advantages and disadvantages of 3-D systems. A parcour with five standardized tasks, e.g., sewing and knotting, were built to measure performance times objectively and to count faults. Compared to 2-D vision the performance time was 32% shorter and 43% less faults were made under 3-D vision (p < 0.001). In our endoscopy training centre, surgeons involved in basic and advanced laparoscopy courses were trained to use both 2-D and 3-D vision systems. They subsequently completed analogue scale questionnaires to record a subjective impression of comparative ease of operative tasks under 2-D and 3-D vision, and to identify perceived deficiencies in the 3-D system. In both course, all operative tasks were judged significantly easier under 3-D vision (p < 0.001). It was concluded that users with a normal capability for spatial perception can work faster and safer under 3-D vision, especially for more complicated surgical manoeuvres.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]