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

Anschütz, Lukas; Niederhauser, Laura; Wimmer, Wilhelm; Yacoub, Abraam; Weibel, David; Mast, Fred W.; Caversaccio, Marco (2019). Comparison of 3- vs 2-Dimensional Endoscopy Using Eye Tracking and Assessment of Cognitive Load Among Surgeons Performing Endoscopic Ear Surgery. JAMA otolaryngology - head & neck surgery, 145(9), pp. 838-845. American Medical Association 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.1765

	Text 3D_EES.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (784kB)
Preview	Text Manus_3D_EES_REV4_clean2.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (603kB) | Preview

Importance: 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.

Objective: To investigate the usability, advantages, and disadvantages of 3D vs 2D endoscopy in EES under standardized conditions.

Design, Setting, and Participants: 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.

Interventions: 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.

Main Outcomes and Measures: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions and Relevance: 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.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

45 since deposited on 07 Aug 2019
27 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item