Studies have revealed that three-dimensional imaging is superior to two-dimensional (2-D) imaging in improving anatomic orientation and structural differentiation. This report aims to describe the setup and utilization of different 3-D recording modalities (macroscopic, endoscopic and microsurgical) we use in our laboratory and operating room, and discuss their implications in neurosurgical research and didactics. We also highlight the utility of 3-D images in providing depth perception and discernment of structures in comparison to 2D images.
The technical details for equipment and laboratory set up for obtaining 3D images were described. The stereo pair of images was obtained using a modified 'shoot-shift-shoot' method and later converged to a 3D image. For microsurgical procedures, 3D images were obtained using the integrated 3-D video camera coupled to the surgical microscope in both the laboratory and operation room. The comparison between 2-D and 3-D imaging was demonstrated using illustrative cases.
We provided the first report of the methodology for obtaining 3-D endoscopic endonasal images using the 2-D endoscope. Side-by-side comparison of 2-D and 3-D images obtained using all modalities revealed that 3-D imaging was superior to 2-D imaging in providing depth perception and structure identification.
3-D imaging is an invaluable tool in neurosurgical research and education as it provides immediate depth perception (3(rd) dimension), allowing efficient understanding of key spatial relationships. Integration of 3-D imaging in neurosurgical residency programs may increase learning efficiency and shorten learning curves. However, it should not replace direct hands-on practice.
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 27 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from World Neurosurgery
#4,625
of 7,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,014
of 315,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Neurosurgery
#41
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,045 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 315,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
