TY - JOUR
T1 - Feasibility study of utilizing ultraportable projectors for endoscopic video display (With Videos)
AU - Tang, Shou Jiang
AU - Fehring, Amanda
AU - McLemore, Mac
AU - Griswold, Michael
AU - Wang, Wanmei
AU - Paine, Elizabeth R.
AU - Wu, Ruonan
AU - To, Filip
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 The Author(s).
PY - 2014/10/1
Y1 - 2014/10/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - ergonomics and/or human factors study
KW - flexible endoscopy
KW - interventional endoscopy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907482924&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84907482924&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1553350613507148
DO - 10.1177/1553350613507148
M3 - Article
C2 - 24172165
AN - SCOPUS:84907482924
SN - 1553-3506
VL - 21
SP - 513
EP - 519
JO - Surgical Innovation
JF - Surgical Innovation
IS - 5
ER -