Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:26:04.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional endoscopes in anatomical orientation of the middle ear and in simulated surgical tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2022

O Denton ,
P Brahmabhatt ,
J Ahmed  and
A Sanu
O Denton*
Affiliation:
Postgraduate Centre, University Hospital Monklands, NHS Lanarkshire, Airdrie, Scotland. UK
P Brahmabhatt
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Royal Gwent Hospital, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, Wales, UK
J Ahmed
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, Wales, UK
A Sanu
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Morriston Hospital, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Wales, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Oliver Denton, Postgraduate Centre, University Hospital Monklands, AirdrieML6 0JS, Scotland, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Three-dimensional endoscopes provide a stereoscopic view of the operating field, facilitating depth perception compared to two-dimensional systems, but are not yet widely accepted. Existing research addresses performance and preference, but there are no studies that quantify anatomical orientation in endoscopic ear surgery.

Methods

Participants (n = 70) were randomised in starting with either the two-dimensional or three-dimensional endoscope system to perform one of two tasks: anatomical orientation using a labelled three-dimensional printed silicone model of the middle ear, or simulated endoscopic skills. Scores and time to task completion were recorded, as well as self-reported difficulty, confidence and preference.

Results

Novice surgeons scored significantly higher in a test of anatomical orientation using three-dimensional compared to two-dimensional endoscopy (p < 0.001), with no significant difference in the speed of simulated endoscopic skills task completion. For both tasks, there was lower self-reported difficulty and increased confidence when using the three-dimensional endoscope. Participants preferred three-dimensional over two-dimensional endoscopy for both tasks.

Conclusion

The findings demonstrate the superiority of three-dimensional endoscopy in anatomical orientation, specific to endoscopic ear surgery, with statistically indistinguishable performance in a skills task using a simulated trainer.

Keywords

EndoscopesSimulation TrainingEar, MiddleThree-dimensionalTwo-dimensional
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 136 , Issue 2 , February 2022 , pp. 141 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr O Denton takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented orally at the 3rd World Congress on Endoscopic Ear Surgery, 14 June 2019, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

References

Wilhelm, D, Reiser, S, Kohn, N, Witte, M, Leiner, U, Mühlbach, L et al. Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: even well-experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2387–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storz, P, Buess, GF, Kunert, W, Kirschniak, A. 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 2012;26:1454–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, S, Han, P, Liang, F, Cai, Q, Lin, P, Chen, R et al. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional endoscopic-assisted thyroidectomy via the anterior chest approach: a preliminary report. Surg Endosc 2017;31:4194–200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosbrucker, C, Somani, A, Dulemba, J. Visualization of endometriosis: comparative study of 3-dimensional robotic and 2-dimensional laparoscopic endoscopes. J Robot Surg 2018;12:59–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spille, J, Wenners, A, von Hehn, U, Maass, N, Pecks, U, Mettler, L et al. 2D versus 3D in laparoscopic surgery by beginners and experts: a randomized controlled trial on a pelvitrainer in objectively graded surgical steps. J Surg Educ 2017;74:867–77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guanà, R, Ferrero, L, Garofalo, S, Cerrina, A, Cussa, D, Arezzo, A et al. Skills comparison in pediatric residents using a 2-dimensional versus a 3-dimensional high-definition camera in a pediatric laparoscopic simulator. J Surg Educ 2017;74:644–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ko, JKY, Li, RHW, Cheung, VYT. Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy: evaluation of physicians' performance and preference using a pelvic trainer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22:421–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buia, A, Stockhausen, F, Filmann, N, Hanisch, E. 3D vs. 2D imaging in laparoscopic surgery—an advantage? Results of standardised black box training in laparoscopic surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2017;402:167–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanagho, YS, Andriole, GL, Paradis, AG, Madison, KM, Sandhu, GS, Varela, JE et al. 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012;22:865–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sørensen, SMD, Savran, MM, Konge, L, Bjerrum, F. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2016;30:11–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fergo, C, Burcharth, J, Pommergaard, H-C, Kildebro, N, Rosenberg, J. Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg 2017;213:159–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vettoretto, N, Reggiani, L, Cirocchi, R, Henry, BM, Covarelli, P, D'Andrea, V et al. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2018;33:1799–801CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, H, Liang, W, Lei, Z, Liu, Z, Wang, W, He, J et al. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted endoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical data. World J Surg 2018;42:3658–68Google ScholarPubMed
Bickerton, R, Nassimizadeh, AK, Ahmed, S. Three-dimensional endoscopy: the future of nasoendoscopic training. Laryngoscope 2019;129:1280–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rampinelli, V, Doglietto, F, Mattavelli, D, Qiu, J, Raffetti, E, Schreiber, A et al. Two-dimensional high definition versus three-dimensional endoscopy in endonasal skull base surgery: a comparative preclinical study. World Neurosurg 2017;105:223–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anschuetz, L, Niederhauser, L, Wimmer, W, Yacoub, A, Weibel, D, Mast, FW et al. Comparison of 3-vs 2-dimensional endoscopy using eye tracking and assessment of cognitive load among surgeons performing endoscopic ear surgery. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;145:838–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Way, LW, Stewart, L, Gantert, W, Liu, K, Lee, CM, Whang, K et al. Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 2003;237:460–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egi, H, Hattori, M, Suzuki, T, Sawada, H, Kurita, Y, Ohdan, H. The usefulness of 3-dimensional endoscope systems in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4562–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogino-Nishimura, E, Nakagawa, T, Sakamoto, T, Ito, J. Efficacy of three-dimensional endoscopy in endonasal surgery. Auris Nasus Larynx 2015;42:203–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szold, A. Seeing is believing. Surg Endosc 2005;19:730–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar