• Shinichiro Sakata, Marcus O Watson, Philip M Grove, and Andrew R L Stevenson.
• *School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia †Clinical Skills Development Service, Queensland Health, Herston, Queensland, Australia ‡Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia §School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
• Ann. Surg. 2016 Feb 1; 263 (2): 234-9.

ObjectiveTo describe studies evaluating 3 generations of three-dimensional (3D) displays over the course of 20 years.Summary Background DataMost previous studies have analyzed performance differences during 3D and two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy without using appropriate controls that equated conditions in all respects except for 3D or 2D viewing.MethodsDatabases search consisted of MEDLINE and PubMed. The reference lists for all relevant articles were also reviewed for additional articles. The search strategy employed the use of keywords "3D," "Laparoscopic," "Laparoscopy," "Performance," "Education," "Learning," and "Surgery" in appropriate combinations.ResultsOur current understanding of the performance metrics between 3D and 2D laparoscopy is mostly from the research with flawed study designs. This review has been written in a qualitative style to explain in detail how prior research has underestimated the potential benefit of 3D displays and the improvements that must be made in future experiments comparing 3D and 2D displays to better determine any advantage of using one display or the other.ConclusionsIndividual laparoscopic performance in 3D may be affected by a multitude of factors. It is crucial for studies to measure participant stereoscopic ability, control for system crosstalk, and use validated measures of performance.

17 keywords...

hide…