Table 5.
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.