Skip to main content
. 2017 Aug 16;9(8):368–377. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v9.i8.368

Table 5.

Other prototype projection systems

Ref. Year Projection system for 3D Who and what assessed Objective outcomes Subjective outcomes
Taffinder et al[45] 1999 Dual channel scope with autostereoscopic/glass free screen 28 subjects (16 novices and 12 experienced laparoscopic surgeons) Novices = basic grasping and cutting lab based skills Experienced = suturing and complex cutting lab based skills Time and performance score (ICSAD assessment tool) Significant improvement in 3D over 2D laparoscopy No side effects reported with 3D
Ohuchida et al[46] 2009 Dual channel scope with “Cyberdome” projection system 23 novices 6 × lab based skills tasks Time, errors and performance Significant improvement in all parameters in 3D with cyberdome over 2D NA
Storz et al[47] 2011 Dual-channel scope + wavelength multiplex camera and monitor with polarising glasses 30 subjects (20 medical students and 10 experienced laparoscopic surgeons) 5 × lab based skills tasks Time and errors In 4 out 5 tasks, significant reduction in time in 3D, in 4out of 5 tasks, significant reduction in errors NA
Khoshabeh et al[48] 2012 Dual-channel scope + Multiview autostereoscopic display/glass free screen 3 experienced laparoscopic surgeons 2 × lab based skills tasks Time and errors Reduced time and errors using 3D NA

NA: Not available; 3D: Three-dimensional; 2D: Two-dimensional.