Trial reportAnnals of surgery2020
3D Versus 4K Display System - Influence of "State-of-the-art"-Display Technique on Surgical Performance (IDOSP-study) in Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Randomized Cross-over Trial.
Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D vs. 2D-4 K: Performance and self-perception of laparoscopic novices in a randomized prospective teaching intervention using standard tasks and box trainers.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Trial
- The influence of stereoscopic vision on surgical performance in minimal invasive surgery-a substudy of the IDOSP-Study (Influence of 3D- vs. 4 K-Display Systems on Surgical Performance in minimal invasive surgery).Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Trial
- Gender benefit in laparoscopic surgical performance using a 3D-display system: data from a randomized cross-over trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Trial
- Utility of 4 K three-dimensional endoscopic system in performing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy: initial results of the first year after installation.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Which video technology brings the higher cognitive burden and motion sickness in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 3D, 2D-4 K or 3D-4 K? a propensity score study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Ten years of IRCAD, Barretos, SP, Brazil.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2022Article
- Technological Advancements in Male Infertility Microsurgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- 4K versus 3D total laparoscopic hysterectomy by resident in training: a prospective randomised trial.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2021Article
- Performance of three-dimensional and ultra-high-definition (4K) technology in laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of minimal access surgeryReview
- The experience of 100 cases of 8K/two-dimensional laparoscopic colorectal surgery - The evaluation of 8K/two-dimensional laparoscopy and how to use it.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate if "state-of-the-art" 3D- versus 4K-display techniques could influence surgical performance.
backgroundHigh quality minimally invasive surgery is challenging. Therefore excellent vision is crucial. 3D display technique (3D) and 2D-4K technique (4K) are designed to facilitate surgical performance, either due to spatial resolution (3D) or due to very high resolution (4K).
methodsIn randomized cross-over trial the surgical performance of medical students (MS), non-board certified surgeons (NBC), and board certified surgeons (BC) was compared using 3D versus 4K display technique at a minimally invasive training Parkour.
resultsOne hundred twenty-eight participants were included (February 2018 through October 2019, 49 MS, 39 NBC, 40 BC). The overall Parkour time (s) 3D versus 4K was 712.5 s ± 17.5 s versus 999.5 s ± 25.1 s (P < 0.001) for all levels of experience. It was (3D vs 4K) for MS (30 tasks) 555.4 s ± 28.9 s versus 858.7 s ± 41.6 s, (P < 0.0001), for NBC (42 tasks) 935.9 s ± 31.5 s versus 1274.1 s ± 45.1 s (P =< 0.001) and for BC (42 task) 646.3 s ± 30.9 s versus 865.7 s ± 43.7 s (P < 0.001). The overall number of mistakes was (3D vs 4K) 10.0 ± 0.5 versus 13.3 ± 0.7 (P < 0.001), for MS 8.9 ± 0.9 versus 13.1 ± 1.1 (P < 0.001), for NBC 12.45 ± 1.0 versus 16.7 ± 1.2 (P < 0.001) and for BC 8.8 ± 1.0 versus 10.0 ± 1.2 (P = 0.18). MS, BC, and NBC showed shorter performance time in 100% of the task with 3D (significantly in 6/7 tasks). For number of mistakes the effect was less pronounced for more experienced surgeons. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration-task load index was lower with 3D.
conclusion3D laparoscopic display technique optimizes surgical performance compared to the 4K technique. Surgeons benefit from the improved visualization regardless of their individual surgical expertise.
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.