Zusammenfassung
Fragestellung
Die zweidimensionale Darstellung von Stereoendoskopievideobildern und die dreidimensionale Darstellung mit Polarisationsgläsern sowie die dreidimensionale Darstellung mit einem autostereoskopischen Display wurden verglichen, um mögliche Vorteile eines dieser Verfahren zu belegen.
Material und Methode
59 endoskopisch unerfahrenen Testpersonen wurden 3 unterschiedlich schwierige Übungsaufgaben gestellt, die sie mit endoskopischen Instrumenten durchführen mussten. Bei den einzelnen Aufgaben kamen jeweils die unterschiedlichen Darstellungsarten der Stereoendoskopiebilder zum Einsatz. Es wurden verschiedene Parameter wie Geschwindigkeit beim Lösen der Aufgabe, Genauigkeit und absolvierte Menge erhoben. Die gewonnenen Daten wurden statistisch mit deskriptiven und vergleichenden Methoden ausgewertet und verglichen.
Ergebnisse
Weder das Geschlecht noch die Händigkeit noch der Grad der Stereopsie hatten einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die Ergebnisse der einzelnen Aufgaben. Die 3 Darstellungsverfahren unterschieden sich hinsichtlich der Testergebnisse nicht signifikant.
Schlussfolgerung
Alle 3 Darstellungsverfahren lieferten vergleichbare Ergebnisse. Ein besonderer Vorteil eines Verfahrens war nicht nachweisbar. Hinsichtlich einer abschließenden Beurteilung der Möglichkeiten einer räumlichen Darstellung in der Endoskopie bleiben die Entwicklungen in der Endoskoptechnologie (z. B. bei der Bildgewinnung) abzuwarten.
Abstract
Purpose
This study compares the two-dimensional presentation of stereo-endoscopic video data with three-dimensional presentation using polarization glasses and three-dimensional presentation with an autostereoscopic display. The aim of this study was to evaluate possible advantages of the three display technologies.
Material und Methods
Fifty-nine test persons untrained in endoscopy had to complete three endoscopic tasks with different levels of difficulty. Each test involved a new presentation method. Different measurements were noted such as speed of task completion, accuracy of task performance, and quantity of solved tasks. The data collected were statistically evaluated.
Results
Neither sex, handedness, nor level of stereopsis had any statistically significant impact on the test results. The differences between the three presentation methods of stereo-endoscopic pictures were not statistically significant.
Conclusion
Similar results were achieved with all three presentation methods. None of the presentation methods was significantly superior in the values measured. A final assessment of the possibilities of spatial endoscopy should await future technological developments in endoscopic devices (e.g., picture acquisition).
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Literatur
Arezzo A, Kees T, Kunert W, De Gregori M, Buess G (2000) [Shadow optic. An endoscope with optimized ligth]. Chir Ital 52: 451–453
Bachert C, Verhaeghe B, Cauwenberge P van, Daele J (2000) Endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) in skull base repairs and CSF leakage. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 54: 179–189
Becker H, Melzer A, Schurr MO, Buess G (1993) 3-D video techniques in endoscopic surgery. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 1: 40–46
Birkett DH, Josephs LG, Este-McDonald J (1994) A new 3-D laparoscope in gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Endosc 8: 1448–1451
Chan AC, Chung SC, Yim AP, Lau JY, Ng EK, Li AK (1997) Comparison of two-dimensional vs three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 11: 438–440
Crosthwaite G, Chung T, Dunkley P, Shimi S, Cuschieri A (1995) Comparison of direct vision and electronic two- and three-dimensional display systems on surgical task efficiency in endoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 82: 849–851
Dion YM, Gaillard F (1997) Visual integration of data and basic motor skills under laparoscopy. Influence of 2-D and 3-D video-camera systems. Surg Endosc 11: 995–1000
Ducic Y (2001) Endoscopically assisted diagnosis and treatment of maxillofacial fractures. J Otolaryngol 30: 149–153
Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 351: 248–251
Har-El G (2001) Endoscopic management of 108 sinus mucoceles. Laryngoscope 111: 2131–2134
Hofmeister J, Frank TG, Cuschieri A, Wade NJ (2001) Perceptual aspects of two-dimensional and stereoscopic display techniques in endoscopic surgery: review and current problems. Semin Laparosc Surg 8: 12–24
Jones DB, Brewer JD, Soper NJ (1996) The influence of three-dimensional video systems on laparoscopic task performance. Surg Laparosc Endosc 6: 191–197
Kunert W, Flemming E, Schurr MO, Buess GF (1997) [Optics with natural appearing added illumination]. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 114: 1232–1234
McDougall EM, Soble JJ, Wolf JS Jr, Nakada SY, Elashry OM, Clayman RV (1996) Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic video systems. J Endourol 10: 371–374
Mueller MD, Camartin C, Dreher E, Hanggi W (1999) Three-dimensional laparoscopy. Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 13: 469–472
Muller-Richter UD, Ruprecht KW (2001) Bessere Auswertung von HRT-Aufnahmen durch dreidimensionale Darstellung. Ophthalmologe 98: 859–863
Muller-Richter UD, Malig HJ, Schwerdtner A, Lang M, Hille K, Ruprecht KW (1999) Erste klinische Erfahrungen mit dem Dresdner 3D-Display als Zusatzzum Heidelberg-Retina-Tomograph (HRT). Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 215: 182–185
Muller-Richter UD, Malig HJ, Schwerdtner A, Lang M, Hille K, Ruprecht KW (2000) Three-dimensional analysis of measurements of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 238: 746–751
Muller-Richter UD, Limberger A, Weber P, Spitzer WJ, Schilling M (2003) Comparison between three-dimensional presentation of endoscopic procedures with polarisation glasses and an autostereoscopic display. Surg Endosc 17: 502–504
Peitgen K, Walz MV, Walz MV, Holtmann G, Eigler FW (1996) A prospective randomized experimental evaluation of three-dimensional imaging in laparoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 44: 262–267
Pietrabissa A, Scarcello E, Carobbi A, Mosca F (1994) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video system for the trained endoscopic surgeon and the beginner. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 2: 315–317
Rohner D, Yeow V, Hammer B (2001) Endoscopically assisted Le Fort I osteotomy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 29: 360–365
Sandler NA (2001) Endoscopic-assisted reduction and fixation of a mandibular subcondylar fracture: report of a case. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 59: 1479–1482
Sandler NA, Carrau RL, Ochs MW, Beatty RL (1999) The use of maxillary sinus endoscopy in the diagnosis of orbital floor fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 57: 399–403
Sasaki CT, Jassin B (2001) Cancer of the pharynx and larynx. Am J Med [Suppl 8A] 111: 118S–123S
Schwaitzberg SD (2001) Imaging systems in minimally invasive surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg 8: 3–11
Taffinder N, Smith SG, Huber J, Russell RC, Darzi A (1999) The effect of a second-generation 3D endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 13: 1087–1092
Van Bergen P, Kunert W, Bessell J, Buess GF (1998) Comparative study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional vision systems for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 12: 948–954
Van Bergen P, Kunert W, Buess GF (1999) Three-dimensional (3-D) video systems: bi-channel or single-channel optics? Endoscopy 31: 732–737
Wade NJ, Swanston M (1991) An introduction to visual perception. Routledge, London
Wenzl R, Lehner R, Vry U, Pateisky N, Sevelda P, Husslein P (1994) Three-dimensional video-endoscopy: clinical use in gynaecological laparoscopy. Lancet 344: 1621–1622
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Müller-Richter, U.D.A., Limberger, A., Weber, P. et al. Vergleichende Untersuchung räumlicher Darstellungsverfahren in der Stereoendoskopie. Mund Kiefer GesichtsChir 7, 157–163 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-003-0471-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-003-0471-2