Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 341–351 | Cite as

Comparison of six display modes for a multi-resolution foveated laparoscope

  • Sangyoon LeeEmail author
  • Hong HuaEmail author
  • Mike Nguyen
  • Allan J. Hamilton
New Technology
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

Background

To overcome the field of view and ergonomic limitations of standard laparoscopes, we are developing a multi-resolution foveated laparoscope that can simultaneously obtain both wide- and zoomed-in-view images through a single scope. To facilitate the effective access to the dual views of images with different resolution and field coverage acquired by our laparoscope, six different display modes have been developed. Each of the six display modes has inherent advantages and disadvantages. This study compares the six display modes through a human-subject experiment, which was conducted with an emulated laparoscope using a 4K camera.

Methods

Twenty-four subjects without medicine background performed three evaluation trials of a touching task with each of the display modes. Various objective measurements including task completion time, the number of collisions, gaze position, and tooltip position, and subjective preference for the display modes were recorded.

Results

For all the measurements except for task completion time and moving speed of tooltip, there were statistically significant differences among the display modes. Although the focus plus warped context view mode was selected as one of the least preferred modes, it showed the best task performance.

Conclusions

The unblocked wide context view was useful to provide a situational awareness even when it was severely distorted in some of the display modes, and information continuity played an important role in improving task performance. Moreover, the position change of viewing window coupled to the location of region of interest helped improve task performance, by providing an additional cue for spatial awareness.

Keywords

Laparoscope Display interface Dual views Multi-resolution visualization Focus + context Overview + detail 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant Award 1R01EB18921-01.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dr. Hong Hua has a patent Multi-Resolution Foveated Endoscope/Laparoscope (pending) and a patent Optical Article and Illumination System for Endoscope (pending), and has no other related conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Drs. Sangyoon Lee, Mike Nguyen, and Allan J. Hamilton have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Cuschieri A (1991) Minimal access surgery and the future of interventional laparoscopy. Am J Surg 161:404–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heemskerk J, Zandbergen R, Maessen JG, Greve JWM, Bouvy ND (2006) Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg Endosc 20:730–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parker WH (2010) Understanding errors during laparoscopic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 37(3):437–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pierre SA, Ferrandino MN, Simmons WN, Fernandez C, Zhong P, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2009) High definition laparoscopy: objective assessment of performance characteristics and comparison with standard laparoscopy. J Endourol Soc 23:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim SP, Shah ND, Weight CJ, Thompson RH, Moriarty JP, Shippee ND, Costello BA, Boorjian SA, Leibovich BC (2011) Contemporary trends in nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in the United States: results from a population based cohort. J Urol 186(5):1779–1785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP (2005) Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS-J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 9:258–261Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsai FS, Johnson D, Francis CS, Cho SH, Qiao W, Arianpour A, Mintz Y, Horgan S, Talamini M, Lo Y-H (2010) Fluidic lens laparoscopic zoom camera for minimally invasive surgery. J Biomed Opt 15(3):030504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goel R, Lomanto D (2012) Controversies in single-port laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(5):380–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canes D, Desai MM, Aron M, Haber G-P, Goel R, Stein J, Kaouk JH, Gill IS (2008) Transumbilical single-port surgery: evolution and current status. Eur Urol 54:1020–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qin Y, Hua H, Nguyen M (2013) Development of a laparoscope with multi-resolution foveation capability for minimally invasive surgery. Proceedings of SPIE 8573, design and quality for biomedical technologies VI, 857309, February 2–3 2013, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cockburn A, Karlson A, Bederson BB (2009) A review of overview + detail, zooming, and focus + context interfaces. ACM Comput Surv 41(1):2:1–2:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oh J-Y, Hua H (2008) Usability of multi-scale interfaces for 3D workbench displays. Presence 17(5):415–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiang X, Zheng B, Atkins MS (2015) Video processing to locate the tooltip position in surgical eye-hand coordination tasks. Surg Innov 22(3):285–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu F, Gleicher M (2005) Automatic image retargeting with fisheye-view warping. Proc 18th Annu ACM symp user interface softw technol (UIST 05), October 23–27 2005, Seattle, WA, pp. 153–162Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cao A, Ellis RD, Klein ED, Auner GW, Klein MD, Pandya AK (2008) Comparison of a supplemental wide field of view versus a single field of view with zoom on performance in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 22:1445–1451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shah RD, Cao A, Golenberg L, Ellis RD, Auner GW, Pandya AK, Klein MD (2009) Performance of basic manipulation and intracorporeal suturing tasks in a robotic surgical system: single- versus dual-monitor views. Surg Endosc 23:727–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hornbæk K, Frøkjær E (2003) Reading patterns and usability in visualizations of electronic documents. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 10(2):119–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gutwin C, Skopik A (2003) Fisheye views are good for large steering tasks. Proc ACM SIGCHI Conf human factors in computing systems (CHI’03), April 05–10 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, pp. 201–208Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu C, Chapuis O, Beaudouin-Lafon M, Lecolinet E, Mackay W (2014) Effects of display size and navigation type on a classification task. Proc ACM SIGCHI Conf human factors in computing systems (CHI’14), April 26-May 01 2014, Toronto, ON, pp. 4147–4156Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Butscher S, Reiterer H (2016) Applying guidelines for the design of distortions on focus + context interfaces. Proc Int Working Conf advanced visual interfaces (AVI’16), June 07–10 2016, Bari, pp. 244–247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Optical SciencesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Arizona Simulation Technology and Education Center, Arizona Health Sciences CenterUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations