Comparison of 3- vs 2-Dimensional Endoscopy Using Eye Tracking and Assessment of Cognitive Load Among Surgeons Performing Endoscopic Ear Surgery.


Journal

JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery
ISSN: 2168-619X
Titre abrégé: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589542

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 Sep 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 26 7 2019
medline: 26 7 2019
entrez: 26 7 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Endoscopic ear surgery (EES) is an emerging technique to treat middle ear diseases; however, the interventions are performed in 2-dimensional (2D) endoscopic views, which do not provide depth perception. Recent technical developments now allow the application of 3-dimensional (3D) endoscopy in EES. To investigate the usability, advantages, and disadvantages of 3D vs 2D endoscopy in EES under standardized conditions. This cohort study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center in Bern, Switzerland, included 16 residents and consultants of the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern. Each participant performed selected steps of a type I tympanoplasty and stapedotomy in 3D and 2D views in a cadaveric model using a randomized, Latin-square crossover design. Time taken to perform the EES, number of attempts, and accidental damage during the dissections were compared between 3D and 2D endoscopy. Eye tracking was performed throughout the interventions. Cognitive load and subjective feedback were measured by standardized questionnaires. Of the 16 surgeons included in the study (11 inexperienced residents; 5 experienced consultants), 8 were women (50%); mean age was 36 years (range, 27-57 years). Assessment of surgical time revealed similar operating times for both techniques (181 seconds in 2D vs 174 seconds in 3D). A total of 64 surgical interventions were performed. Most surgeons preferred the 3D technique (10 for 3D vs 6 for 2D), even though a higher incidence of eye strain, measured on a 7-point Likert scale, was observed (3D, 2.19 points vs 2D, 1.44 points; mean difference , 0.74; 95% CI, 0.29-1.20; r = 0.67). Eye movement assessment revealed a higher duration of fixation for consultants in 2D (0.79 seconds) compared with 3D endoscopy (0.54 seconds), indicating a less-efficient application of previously acquired experiences using the new technique. Residents (mean [SD], 49.02 [16.4]) had a significantly higher workload than consultants (mean [SD], 27.21 [12.20]), independent of the used technique or task. Three-dimensional endoscopy is suitable for EES, especially for inexperienced surgeons whose mental model of the intervention has yet to be consolidated. The application of 3D endoscopy in clinical routines and for educational purposes may be feasible and beneficial.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31343675
pii: 2739224
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.1765
pmc: PMC6659156
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

838-845

Auteurs

Lukas Anschuetz (L)

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Laura Niederhauser (L)

Department of Psychology, Swiss University of Distance Education, Bern, Switzerland.

Wilhelm Wimmer (W)

Artificial Organ Center for Biomedical Engineering, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Abraam Yacoub (A)

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

David Weibel (D)

Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Fred W Mast (FW)

Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Marco Caversaccio (M)

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH