PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G El Shallaly

Publications and source records attributed to G El Shallaly.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Optimum view distance for laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Proper visualization of the surgical field without fatigue is essential in laparoscopic surgery and reduces the risk of iatrogenic injuries. One of the important factors influencing visualization is the viewing distance between the surgeon and the monitor. This was the subject of the current investigation. METHODS: For this study, 14 surgeons participated in experiments designed to determine two working distances from a standard 34-cm (14 in. diagonal) cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor: (a) the maximum view distance permitting small prints of a near vision chart to be identified clearly by sight, (b) and the minimum view distance (of a standard resolution chart) just short of flicker, image degradation, or both. The range of the monitor optimal working distance for laparoscopic surgery was extrapolated from these data sets. RESULTS: The maximum view distance allowing identification of detail averaged 221 cm (range, 166-302 cm). The mean minimal view distance short of flicker/image degradation was 136 cm (range, 102-168 cm). The coefficient of variation for the two view distances was almost identical (18% vs 17%, respectively), and a frequency histogram confirmed the normality of the two data sets. Thus, for most surgeons, the extrapolated monitor view distances for laparoscopic surgery using a 14-in. diagonal (34-cm) monitor range from 139 to 303 cm (57-121 in.) for maximal distance viewing and from 90 to 182 cm (36-73 in.) for close-up viewing (i.e., a monitor optimal working distance ranging from 90 to 303 cm (36-121 in.). CONCLUSIONS: For most surgeons operating from a 14-in. diagonal CRT monitor, both the maximal and minimal (close-up) view distances are individually variable, but the surgeon should never be farther than 3 m (10 ft) or less than 0.9 m (3 ft) from the monitor. However, within limits, the maximal view distance increases with increasing monitor size. The limit for close-up distance is 0.9 m, irrespective of monitor size.

Clinical Competence↗

Intraoperative cholangiography time in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: timing the radiographer.

BACKGROUND: The debate for and against the routine use of intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) continues. One of the main arguments against the routine use of the technique during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the length of time it takes, which in turn increases the cost. In this study, we recorded the time spent by the radiographer providing IOC service in the context of optimizing the utilization of the radiographer and IOC time. METHODS: A total of 91 consecutive LCS, including 19 laparoscopic bile duct explorations, from April 2003 to January 2004 were included in the study. We recorded the time the radiographer took from receiving a call to arriving in the theater, the time he or she spent performing the IOC, and the total time spent in theater. We also recorded the total operative time. RESULTS: The mean time from call to arrival was 9 min (SD = 3, n = 91). The mean total time spent by the radiographer in the theater involved in performing the IOC during LC was 15 min (SD = 8, n = 72), and that during laparoscopic exploration was 46 min (SD = 20, n = 19). The mean operative time was 67 min (SD = 24) and 135 min (SD = 59), respectively. CONCLUSION: Radiographer services as well as IOC time could be optimized to facilitate the routine use of this important technique in LC. Optimizing the logistics and time factor in IOC is an integral component of single-stage management of patients with suspected bile duct stones.

Cholangiography↗

Comparison of conventional and gaze-down imaging in laparoscopic task performance.

BACKGROUND: In video-assisted laparoscopy, the image is usually displayed on a monitor placed at approximately eye level. Video projection systems project the image onto a screen placed close to the hands. This is said to be ergonomically superior. To evaluate this approach, a proprietary projection system (PS) was compared to a monitor display (MD). METHOD: The resolution, ghosting, flickering, glare, contrast, color smear, and color matching of the two modalities were compared. A bowel-suturing task was employed to evaluate performance differences. RESULTS: The image displayed by the first-generation PS is inferior to that of the MD in contrast and resolution measures, but it is comparable in the other image qualities. No significant differences in task performance were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The first-generation PS does not confer performance or comfort advantages over an MD. The theoretical advantages of the gaze-down stance are likely to be realized only if a high-quality projector is used.

Clinical Competence↗