↓ Skip to main content

The viewpoint-specific failure of modern 3D displays in laparoscopic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The viewpoint-specific failure of modern 3D displays in laparoscopic surgery
Published in
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00423-016-1495-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shinichiro Sakata, Philip M. Grove, Andrew Hill, Marcus O. Watson, Andrew R. L. Stevenson

Abstract

Surgeons conventionally assume the optimal viewing position during 3D laparoscopic surgery and may not be aware of the potential hazards to team members positioned across different suboptimal viewing positions. The first aim of this study was to map the viewing positions within a standard operating theatre where individuals may experience visual ghosting (i.e. double vision images) from crosstalk. The second aim was to characterize the standard viewing positions adopted by instrument nurses and surgical assistants during laparoscopic pelvic surgery and report the associated levels of visual ghosting and discomfort. In experiment 1, 15 participants viewed a laparoscopic 3D display from 176 different viewing positions around the screen. In experiment 2, 12 participants (randomly assigned to four clinically relevant viewing positions) viewed laparoscopic suturing in a simulation laboratory. In both experiments, we measured the intensity of visual ghosting. In experiment 2, participants also completed the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. We mapped locations within the dimensions of a standard operating theatre at which visual ghosting may result during 3D laparoscopy. Head height relative to the bottom of the image and large horizontal eccentricities away from the surface normal were important contributors to high levels of visual ghosting. Conventional viewing positions adopted by instrument nurses yielded high levels of visual ghosting and severe discomfort. The conventional viewing positions adopted by surgical team members during laparoscopic pelvic operations are suboptimal for viewing 3D laparoscopic displays, and even short periods of viewing can yield high levels of discomfort.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 33%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Psychology 3 14%
Engineering 2 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,788
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#878
of 1,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,792
of 343,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.