Background and Study Aims: This paper presents the results of a comparison
between two different three-dimensional (3-D) video systems, one with singl
e-channel optics, the other with hi-channel optics. The latter integrates t
wo lens systems, each transferring one half of the stereoscopic image; the
former uses only one lens system, similar to a two-dimensional (2-D) endosc
ope, which transfers the complete stereoscopic picture.
Material and Methods: In our training centre for minimally invasive surgery
, surgeons were involved in basic and advanced laparoscopic courses using b
oth a 2-D system and the two 3-D video systems. They completed analog scale
questionnaires in order to record a subjective impression of the relative
convenience of operating in 2-D and 3-D vision, and to identify perceived d
eficiencies in the 3-D system. As an objective test, different experimental
tasks were developed, in order to measure performance times and to count p
re-defined errors made while using the two 3-D video systems and the 2-D sy
stem.
Results and Conclusions: Using the hi-channel optical system, the surgeon h
as a heightened spatial perception, and can work faster and more safely tha
n with a single-channel system. However, single-channel optics allow the us
e of an angulated endoscope, and the free rotation of the optics relative t
o the camera, which is necessary for some operative applications.