ArticleWorld journal of surgery2018
A Comparative Study of Generic Visual Components of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Images.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Objective assessment of surgical operative performance by observational clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA): a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Assessment of 3-Dimensional vs 2-Dimensional Imaging and Technical Performance Using a Multiport Intraoperative Data Capture and Analytic System for Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThere is a strong evidence to suggest that 3D imaging improves the laparoscopic task performance when compared against 2D. However, to date, no study has explained why that might be. We identified six generic visual components during laparoscopic imaging and aimed to study each component in both 2D and 3D environments for comparison.
methodsTwenty-four consented laparoscopic novices performed specific isolated tasks in a laparoscopic Endo Trainer in 2D and 3D separately. The six endpoints were the accuracy in detecting changes in the laparoscopic images in the following components: distance, area, angle, curvature, volume and spatial coordinates. All the components except the spatial coordinates were assessed by creation, measurement and comparison. Each component was analysed between 2D and 3D groups and within each group at different values. Tests of spatial coordinates were video-recorded and analysed for error number and error types by human reliability analysis technique. Errors types included past-pointing, not reaching the object and touching the wrong object. The results were statistically analysed with independent T test.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between 2D and 3D accuracy in the angle, area, distance and curvature. 3D performed more accurately in comparing volumes (p = 0.05). In spatial coordinates, there were a statistically significant higher number of errors in 2D as compared to 3D (p < 0.001). Past-pointing and touching the wrong objects were significantly higher in 2D (p < 0.05).
conclusionBetween all the visual components, detecting change in volume and the spatial coordinates showed significant improvement in 3D environment when compared to 2D.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.