Original Article
The comparison between novel and traditional three-dimensional image system in thoracoscopy: glasses-less vs. glass
Abstract
Background: Although three-dimensional (3D) thoracoscopic technology has been available for some time, it is not widely utilized in most centers. Dimness, unsatisfied visualization and discomfort associated with wearing 3D glasses might account for such phenomenon. We have recently developed a “Glass-less” 3D system for thoracoscopic surgery to avoid these in issues.
Methods: Surgical residents will be invited to perform a set of commonly used surgical procedures using “Glass-less” 3D and conventional 3D system. The procedure duration will be recorded and analyzed. Besides, they will be asked to finish questionnaires before and after procedure.
Results: A total of 25 volunteers were participated in the study. The mean working time of them was 18.3 years. 3D image system was not routinely used by most of them. High maintenance cost was the major reason for the result (8/25). Most of them showed great expectation of 3D system on ideal visualization and comfortability (19/25, 21/25). Majority of participants preferred glass-less 3D system rather than the conventional one referring to image quality (14/25), effect (13/25), accessibility (17/25) and overall performance (16/25). However, most of them felt uncomfortable when using glass-less 3D (17/25). Regarding to operation precision, 10 of them preferred glass-less 3D while 11 considered no difference. No difference was observed in the comparison of procedure duration.
Conclusions: Glass-less 3D image system was a novel technology which offered ideal image, similar operational precision as the conventional 3D system. Although inappropriate utilization might lead to discomfort experience, improvements would be acquired after proper adjustments.
Methods: Surgical residents will be invited to perform a set of commonly used surgical procedures using “Glass-less” 3D and conventional 3D system. The procedure duration will be recorded and analyzed. Besides, they will be asked to finish questionnaires before and after procedure.
Results: A total of 25 volunteers were participated in the study. The mean working time of them was 18.3 years. 3D image system was not routinely used by most of them. High maintenance cost was the major reason for the result (8/25). Most of them showed great expectation of 3D system on ideal visualization and comfortability (19/25, 21/25). Majority of participants preferred glass-less 3D system rather than the conventional one referring to image quality (14/25), effect (13/25), accessibility (17/25) and overall performance (16/25). However, most of them felt uncomfortable when using glass-less 3D (17/25). Regarding to operation precision, 10 of them preferred glass-less 3D while 11 considered no difference. No difference was observed in the comparison of procedure duration.
Conclusions: Glass-less 3D image system was a novel technology which offered ideal image, similar operational precision as the conventional 3D system. Although inappropriate utilization might lead to discomfort experience, improvements would be acquired after proper adjustments.
