Evaluation of Clinical Usefulness of a Medical Monitor Equipped With an Organic Electroluminescence Panel in Comparison With Liquid Crystal Display Monitors

Fumio Kataoka, Hiroyuki Nomura, Yuya Nogami, Hirokazu Arima, Yoshiko Sawano, Kouji Banno, Takuma Fujii, Daisuke Aoki

研究成果: Article

1 引用 (Scopus)

抄録

The medical liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor is a conventionally used imaging device for diagnosis and during endoscopic surgery. Recently, a medical organic electroluminescence panel, the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) monitor, was made available commercially. The advantages of the OLED monitor include good color reproducibility, high contrast, and high video responsiveness. In this nonclinical study, we compared the clinical usefulness and image quality of the OLED monitor and those of the LCD monitor using videos of gynecologic endoscopic surgeries. Monitors were set for blind evaluation. Five evaluators with varying experience in endoscopic surgery evaluated 21 surgery videos played simultaneously on an OLED monitor and two LCD monitors for 2 to 3 minutes twice. Evaluators judged 13 clinical usefulness indices and 11 image quality indices using a 5-point scale (1, very good; 5, very poor) for each video. The mean scores of clinical usefulness indices of the OLED monitor and the LCD monitors 1 and 2 were 2.2 to 2.7, 2.1 to 3.3, and 3.0 to 3.2, respectively. Of seven indices measured, five including motion response, the ability to differentiate organs, recognize lesions, and reproduce actual images, and the general impression of picture quality were statistically superior with use of the OLED monitor compared with the LCD monitor 1, and two including ability to distinguish blood vessels and the ureters were statistically superior with use of the LCD monitor 1 compared with the OLED monitor. The mean scores of image quality indices of the OLED monitor and the LCD monitors 1 and 2 were 1.8 to 3.2, 2.6 to 3.6, and 2.8 to 4.0, respectively. Each index of the OLED monitor was superior to or comparable with those of the LCD monitors. We conclude that the OLED monitor is superior to the LCD monitors insofar as several video presentation characteristics required in gynecologic endoscopic surgery. These findings suggest that the OLED monitor is expected to contribute detailed assessment of organs and the operative field.

元の言語English
ページ(範囲)522-528
ページ数7
ジャーナルJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
20
発行部数4
DOI
出版物ステータスPublished - 01-07-2013
外部発表Yes

Fingerprint

Liquid Crystals
Light
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
Ureter
Blood Vessels
Color

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

これを引用

Kataoka, Fumio ; Nomura, Hiroyuki ; Nogami, Yuya ; Arima, Hirokazu ; Sawano, Yoshiko ; Banno, Kouji ; Fujii, Takuma ; Aoki, Daisuke. / Evaluation of Clinical Usefulness of a Medical Monitor Equipped With an Organic Electroluminescence Panel in Comparison With Liquid Crystal Display Monitors. :: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2013 ; 巻 20, 番号 4. pp. 522-528.
@article{2ec17d9956dd4fbfbb592c1f5dc66e06,
title = "Evaluation of Clinical Usefulness of a Medical Monitor Equipped With an Organic Electroluminescence Panel in Comparison With Liquid Crystal Display Monitors",
abstract = "The medical liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor is a conventionally used imaging device for diagnosis and during endoscopic surgery. Recently, a medical organic electroluminescence panel, the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) monitor, was made available commercially. The advantages of the OLED monitor include good color reproducibility, high contrast, and high video responsiveness. In this nonclinical study, we compared the clinical usefulness and image quality of the OLED monitor and those of the LCD monitor using videos of gynecologic endoscopic surgeries. Monitors were set for blind evaluation. Five evaluators with varying experience in endoscopic surgery evaluated 21 surgery videos played simultaneously on an OLED monitor and two LCD monitors for 2 to 3 minutes twice. Evaluators judged 13 clinical usefulness indices and 11 image quality indices using a 5-point scale (1, very good; 5, very poor) for each video. The mean scores of clinical usefulness indices of the OLED monitor and the LCD monitors 1 and 2 were 2.2 to 2.7, 2.1 to 3.3, and 3.0 to 3.2, respectively. Of seven indices measured, five including motion response, the ability to differentiate organs, recognize lesions, and reproduce actual images, and the general impression of picture quality were statistically superior with use of the OLED monitor compared with the LCD monitor 1, and two including ability to distinguish blood vessels and the ureters were statistically superior with use of the LCD monitor 1 compared with the OLED monitor. The mean scores of image quality indices of the OLED monitor and the LCD monitors 1 and 2 were 1.8 to 3.2, 2.6 to 3.6, and 2.8 to 4.0, respectively. Each index of the OLED monitor was superior to or comparable with those of the LCD monitors. We conclude that the OLED monitor is superior to the LCD monitors insofar as several video presentation characteristics required in gynecologic endoscopic surgery. These findings suggest that the OLED monitor is expected to contribute detailed assessment of organs and the operative field.",
author = "Fumio Kataoka and Hiroyuki Nomura and Yuya Nogami and Hirokazu Arima and Yoshiko Sawano and Kouji Banno and Takuma Fujii and Daisuke Aoki",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmig.2013.02.008",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "522--528",
journal = "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology",
issn = "1553-4650",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

Evaluation of Clinical Usefulness of a Medical Monitor Equipped With an Organic Electroluminescence Panel in Comparison With Liquid Crystal Display Monitors. / Kataoka, Fumio; Nomura, Hiroyuki; Nogami, Yuya; Arima, Hirokazu; Sawano, Yoshiko; Banno, Kouji; Fujii, Takuma; Aoki, Daisuke.

:: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 巻 20, 番号 4, 01.07.2013, p. 522-528.

研究成果: Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of Clinical Usefulness of a Medical Monitor Equipped With an Organic Electroluminescence Panel in Comparison With Liquid Crystal Display Monitors

AU - Kataoka, Fumio

AU - Nomura, Hiroyuki

AU - Nogami, Yuya

AU - Arima, Hirokazu

AU - Sawano, Yoshiko

AU - Banno, Kouji

AU - Fujii, Takuma

AU - Aoki, Daisuke

PY - 2013/7/1

Y1 - 2013/7/1

N2 - The medical liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor is a conventionally used imaging device for diagnosis and during endoscopic surgery. Recently, a medical organic electroluminescence panel, the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) monitor, was made available commercially. The advantages of the OLED monitor include good color reproducibility, high contrast, and high video responsiveness. In this nonclinical study, we compared the clinical usefulness and image quality of the OLED monitor and those of the LCD monitor using videos of gynecologic endoscopic surgeries. Monitors were set for blind evaluation. Five evaluators with varying experience in endoscopic surgery evaluated 21 surgery videos played simultaneously on an OLED monitor and two LCD monitors for 2 to 3 minutes twice. Evaluators judged 13 clinical usefulness indices and 11 image quality indices using a 5-point scale (1, very good; 5, very poor) for each video. The mean scores of clinical usefulness indices of the OLED monitor and the LCD monitors 1 and 2 were 2.2 to 2.7, 2.1 to 3.3, and 3.0 to 3.2, respectively. Of seven indices measured, five including motion response, the ability to differentiate organs, recognize lesions, and reproduce actual images, and the general impression of picture quality were statistically superior with use of the OLED monitor compared with the LCD monitor 1, and two including ability to distinguish blood vessels and the ureters were statistically superior with use of the LCD monitor 1 compared with the OLED monitor. The mean scores of image quality indices of the OLED monitor and the LCD monitors 1 and 2 were 1.8 to 3.2, 2.6 to 3.6, and 2.8 to 4.0, respectively. Each index of the OLED monitor was superior to or comparable with those of the LCD monitors. We conclude that the OLED monitor is superior to the LCD monitors insofar as several video presentation characteristics required in gynecologic endoscopic surgery. These findings suggest that the OLED monitor is expected to contribute detailed assessment of organs and the operative field.

AB - The medical liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor is a conventionally used imaging device for diagnosis and during endoscopic surgery. Recently, a medical organic electroluminescence panel, the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) monitor, was made available commercially. The advantages of the OLED monitor include good color reproducibility, high contrast, and high video responsiveness. In this nonclinical study, we compared the clinical usefulness and image quality of the OLED monitor and those of the LCD monitor using videos of gynecologic endoscopic surgeries. Monitors were set for blind evaluation. Five evaluators with varying experience in endoscopic surgery evaluated 21 surgery videos played simultaneously on an OLED monitor and two LCD monitors for 2 to 3 minutes twice. Evaluators judged 13 clinical usefulness indices and 11 image quality indices using a 5-point scale (1, very good; 5, very poor) for each video. The mean scores of clinical usefulness indices of the OLED monitor and the LCD monitors 1 and 2 were 2.2 to 2.7, 2.1 to 3.3, and 3.0 to 3.2, respectively. Of seven indices measured, five including motion response, the ability to differentiate organs, recognize lesions, and reproduce actual images, and the general impression of picture quality were statistically superior with use of the OLED monitor compared with the LCD monitor 1, and two including ability to distinguish blood vessels and the ureters were statistically superior with use of the LCD monitor 1 compared with the OLED monitor. The mean scores of image quality indices of the OLED monitor and the LCD monitors 1 and 2 were 1.8 to 3.2, 2.6 to 3.6, and 2.8 to 4.0, respectively. Each index of the OLED monitor was superior to or comparable with those of the LCD monitors. We conclude that the OLED monitor is superior to the LCD monitors insofar as several video presentation characteristics required in gynecologic endoscopic surgery. These findings suggest that the OLED monitor is expected to contribute detailed assessment of organs and the operative field.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880601261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880601261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.02.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.02.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 23870242

AN - SCOPUS:84880601261

VL - 20

SP - 522

EP - 528

JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

SN - 1553-4650

IS - 4

ER -