Feasibility study of utilizing ultraportable projectors for endoscopic video display (with videos).

Autor:	Tang SJ; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA stang@umc.edu., Fehring A; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA., Mclemore M; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA., Griswold M; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA., Wang W; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA., Paine ER; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA., Wu R; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA., To F; Mississippi State University, MS, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Surgical innovation [Surg Innov] 2014 Oct; Vol. 21 (5), pp. 513-9. Date of Electronic Publication: 2013 Oct 30.
DOI:	10.1177/1553350613507148
Abstrakt:	Background: Modern endoscopy requires video display. Recent miniaturized, ultraportable projectors are affordable, durable, and offer quality image display. Objective: Explore feasibility of using ultraportable projectors in endoscopy. Methods: Prospective bench-top comparison; clinical feasibility study. Masked comparison study of images displayed via 2 Samsung ultraportable light-emitting diode projectors (pocket-sized SP-HO3; pico projector SP-P410M) and 1 Microvision Showwx-II Laser pico projector. BENCH-TOP FEASIBILITY STUDY: Prerecorded endoscopic video was streamed via computer. CLINICAL COMPARISON STUDY: Live high-definition endoscopy video was simultaneously displayed through each processor onto a standard liquid crystal display monitor and projected onto a portable, pull-down projection screen. Endoscopists, endoscopy nurses, and technicians rated video images; ratings were analyzed by linear mixed-effects regression models with random intercepts. Results: All projectors were easy to set up, adjust, focus, and operate, with no real-time lapse for any. Bench-top study outcomes: Samsung pico preferred to Laser pico, overall rating 1.5 units higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7-2.4), P < .001; Samsung pocket preferred to Laser pico, 3.3 units higher (95% CI = 2.4-4.1), P < .001; Samsung pocket preferred to Samsung pico, 1.7 units higher (95% CI = 0.9-2.5), P < .001. The clinical comparison study confirmed the Samsung pocket projector as best, with a higher overall rating of 2.3 units (95% CI = 1.6-3.0), P < .001, than Samsung pico. Conclusions: Low brightness currently limits pico projector use in clinical endoscopy. The pocket projector, with higher brightness levels (170 lumens), is clinically useful. Continued improvements to ultraportable projectors will supply a needed niche in endoscopy through portability, reduced cost, and equal or better image quality. (© The Author(s) 2013.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu