Understanding and optimizing laparoscopic videosystems.

Department of General Surgery/A80, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Surgical Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 3.43). 09/2001; 15(8):781-7. DOI: 10.1007/s004640000391
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As tactile feedback and degree of freedom for instrument movement are restricted in laparoscopic surgery, the video image plays the most crucial role in giving the surgeon information about the performance of the operation. The development of small, reliable, high-resolution imaging systems is essential for the surgeon's acquisition detailed information about the tissues being manipulated. Image quality depends on each component of the laparoscopic imaging unit. In this context, it is crucial for the surgeon to have an understanding of how the video signal is formed, transmitted, and displayed. Moreover, the surgeon also needs to have an idea about the basic principles and specifications of the surgical video systems (i.e. charge-coupled device (CCD) camera, monitors, and digitizers). This knowledge is essential for choosing pieces of equipment and knowing how to assemble them into a functional operating suite. The aim of this review is to provide the surgeon with the basics of video signaling, and to familiarize him or her with the technical principles of the surgical video systems. An insight into the future of laparoscopic video systems also is made, and practical tips for improving image quality and troubleshooting are given throughout the article.

  • Source
    Surgical Endoscopy 10/2002; 16(9):1376. · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since its first described case in 1991, laparoscopic colon surgery has lagged behind minimally invasive surgical methods for solid intra-abdominal organs in terms of acceptability, dissemination, and ease of learning. In colon cancer, initial concerns over port site metastases and adequacy of oncologic resection have considerably dampened early enthusiasm for this procedure. Only recently, with the publication of several large, randomized controlled trials, has the incidence of port site metastases been shown to be equivalent to that of open resection. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has also been demonstrated to be at least equivalent to traditional laparotomy in terms of adequacy of oncologic resection, disease recurrence, and long-term survival. In addition, numerous reports have validated short-term benefits following laparoscopic resection for cancer, including shorter hospital stay, shorter time to recovery of bowel function, and decreased analgesic requirements, as well as other postoperative variables. In benign colonic disease, much less high-quality literature exists supporting the use of laparoscopic methods. Two recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated some short-term benefits to laparoscopic ileocolic resection for CD, in addition to evident cosmetic advantages. On the other hand, the current evidence on laparoscopic surgery for UC does not support its routine use among nonexpert surgeons outside of specialized centers. Laparoscopic colonic resection for diverticular disease appears to provide several short-term benefits, although these advantages may not translate to cases of complicated diverticulitis. Despite the increasing acceptability of minimally invasive methods for the management of benign and malignant colonic pathologies, laparoscopic colon resection remains a prohibitively difficult technique to master. Numerous technological innovations have been introduced onto the market in an effort to decrease the steep learning curve associated with laparoscopic colon surgery. Good evidence exists supporting the use of second-generation, sleeveless, hand-assist devices in this context. Similarly, new hemostatic devices such as the ultrasonic scalpel and the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer may be particularly helpful for extensive colonic mobilizations, in which several vascular pedicles must be taken. The precise role of these hemostatic technologies has yet to be established, particularly in comparison with stapling devices and significantly cheaper laparoscopic clips. Finally, recent advances in camera systems are promising to improve the ease with which difficult colonic dissections can be performed.
    Surgical Clinics of North America 09/2006; 86(4):867-97. · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Flexible-tip laparoscopes have recently been introduced into clinical practice, with the goal of improving surgeon performance during complex laparoscopic procedures. We used objective and subjective performance parameters to compare standard rigid 0 degrees and 30 degrees lens laparoscopes two flexible-tip laparoscopes in an in vitro model. Twenty-nine subjects with varied levels of surgical experience performed complex laparoscopic tasks in three different models simulating (a) prostate dissection from the rectum, (b) cystic duct clipping, and (c) distal posterior rectum dissection. Each task was performed using two Storz rigid laparoscopes (0 degrees and 30 degrees) and two flexible-tip laparoscopes, the Olympus LTF-V3 and the Fujinon EL2-TF310. The sequence of application of the two flexible-tip laparoscopes was randomized. In each case, an experienced laparoscopic camera driver controlled the field of vision. Time to complete each task, operative precision, and subjective surgeon rating scores were compared. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a two-sided fisher's exact test. In all three models, the flexible laparoscopes offered no advantage in terms of procedure time, surgical precision, or subjective surgeon rating score when compared with the 30 degrees lens rigid laparoscope. The 30 degrees rigid lens laparoscope and the two flexible-tip laparoscopes were superior to the 0 degrees lens rigid laparoscope for all parameters evaluated, with the exception of subjective rating in the cystic duct model and procedure time in the colorectal model. In this in vitro experimental model, the flexible-tip laparoscopes found to have no advantage over the standard rigid 30 degrees lens laparoscope. These models were validated, as the 0 degrees lens rigid laparoscope was surpassed by the 30 degrees lens rigid laparoscope and the flexible-tip laparoscopes. Both flexible-tip laparoscopes produced similar results and excellent image quality, but some experience is required before their smooth application can be achieved.
    Surgical Endoscopy 11/2005; 19(10):1325-8. · 3.43 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from