3D vs. 4K Display System - Influence of "State-of-the-art"-Display Technique On Surgical Performance (IDOSP-Study) in minimally invasive surgery: protocol for a randomized cross-over trial

Roger Wahba, Rabi Raj Datta, Andrea Hedergott, Jana Bußhoff, Thomas Bruns, Robert Kleinert, Georg Dieplinger, Hans Fuchs, Caroline Gietzelt, Desdemona Möller, Martin Hellmich, Christiane J Bruns, Dirk L Stippel, Roger Wahba, Rabi Raj Datta, Andrea Hedergott, Jana Bußhoff, Thomas Bruns, Robert Kleinert, Georg Dieplinger, Hans Fuchs, Caroline Gietzelt, Desdemona Möller, Martin Hellmich, Christiane J Bruns, Dirk L Stippel

Abstract

Background: Three-dimensional (3D) stereoscopic vision is crucial to perform any kind of manual task. The reduction from real life 3D to virtual two-dimensional (2D) sight is a major challenge in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). A 3D display technique has been shown to reduce operation time and mistakes and to improve the learning curve. Therefore, the use of a3D display technique seems to optimize surgical performance for novice and experienced surgeons. Inspired by consumer electronics, a 4K display technique was recently introduced to MIS. Due to its high resolution and zoom effect, surgeons should benefit from it. The aim of this study is to evaluate if "state-of-the-art" 3D- vs. 4K-display techniques could influence surgical performance.

Methods: A randomized, cross-over, single-institution, single-blinded trial is designed. It compares the primary outcome parameter "surgical performance", represented by "performance time "and "number of mistakes", using a passive polarizing 3D and a 4K display system (two arms) to perform different tasks in a minimally invasive/laparoscopic training parkour. Secondary outcome parameters are the mental stress load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index) and the learning curve. Unexperienced novices (medical students), non-board-certified, and board-certified abdominal surgeons participate in the trial (i.e., level of experience, 3 strata). The parkour consists of seven tasks (for novices, five tasks), which will be repeated three times. The 1st run of the parkour will be performed with the randomized display system, the 2nd run with the other one. After each run, the mental stress load is measured. After completion of the parkour, all participants are evaluated by an ophthalmologist for visual acuity and stereoscopic vision with five tests. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between measurements per subject, a sample size of 36 per stratum is required to detect a standardized effect of 0.5 (including an additional 5% for a non-parametric approach) with a power of 80% at a two-sided type I error of 5%. Thus, altogether 108 subjects need to be enrolled.

Discussion: Complex surgical procedures are performed in a minimally invasive/laparoscopic technique. This study should provide some evidence to decide which display technique a surgeon could choose to optimize his performance.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03445429 . Registered on 7 February 2018.

Keywords: 3D; 4K; Laparoscopic; Learning curve; Minimally invasive surgery; Surgical performance; Surgical training.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study Flowchart - 3D vs. 4K Display System - Influence of “State-of-the-art”-Display Technique on Surgical Performance in Minimally Invasive Surgery. NBC non-board certified, BC board certified
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Set-Up - Laparoscopic training parkour. Laparoscopic training simulator in combination with the 4K (a) and the 3D Display system (b)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Set-up of the laparoscopic training parkour in the operation theater. Laparoscopic training parkour in the operation theater (a, b). When using the passive polarizing 3D display system the participating surgeons have to wear special glasses (b)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Tasks of the laparoscopic training parkour. Rope pass (a), paper cut (b), pegboard transfer (c), needle threading (d), needle recapping (e), circle cutting (f), and knot tying (g)

References

    1. Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ. Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:CD006229.
    1. Wilson Colin H, Sanni A, Rix David A, Soomro Naeem A. Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(11). Accessed 1 Dec 2018.
    1. Suguita FY, Essu FF, Oliveira LT, et al. Learning curve takes 65 repetitions of totally extraperitoneal laparoscopy on inguinal hernias for reduction of operating time and complications. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(10):3939–3945. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5426-z.
    1. Serrano OK, Bangdiwala AS, Vock DM, et al. Defining the tipping point in surgical performance for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy among transplant surgery fellows: a risk-adjusted cumulative summation learning curve analysis. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(7):1868–1878. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14187.
    1. Tidbury LP, Black RH, O’Connor AR. Clinical assessment of stereoacuity and 3-D stereoscopic entertainment. Strabismus. 2015;23(4):164–169. doi: 10.3109/09273972.2015.1107600.
    1. Gurusamy KS, Sahay S, Davidson BR. Three dimensional versus two dimensional imaging for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:CD006882.
    1. Arezzo A, Vettoretto N, Francis NK, et al. The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018. Surg Endosc. 2018. 10.1007/s00464-018-06612-x.
    1. Smith R, Schwab K, Day A, et al. Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg. 2014;101(11):1453–1459. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9601.
    1. Wahba R, Kleinert R, Hellmich M, et al. Optimizing a living kidney donation program: transition to hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy and introduction of a passive polarizing three-dimensional display system. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(6):2577–2585. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5264-4.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Dickersin K, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013: new guidance for content of clinical trial protocols. Lancet. 2013;381(9861):91–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62160-6.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7586.
    1. Noyez L. Control charts, Cusum techniques and funnel plots. A review of methods for monitoring performance in healthcare. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009;9(3):494–499. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2009.204768.
    1. Hennessey IA, Hewett P. Construct, concurrent, and content validity of the eoSim laparoscopic simulator. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(10):855–860. doi: 10.1089/lap.2013.0229.
    1. Kowalewski Karl-Friedrich, Minassian Andreas, Hendrie Jonathan David, Benner Laura, Preukschas Anas Amin, Kenngott Hannes Götz, Fischer Lars, Müller-Stich Beat P., Nickel Felix. One or two trainees per workplace for laparoscopic surgery training courses: results from a randomized controlled trial. Surgical Endoscopy. 2018;33(5):1523–1531. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6440-5.
    1. Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, et al. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 2005;190(1):107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren