from me to the screen almost didn't matter.
That having been said, the biggest screen might not always be practi-
cal in terms of the procedure, the size of the OR and, of course, the
cost. In 2017, a 40- to 45-inch display should be the standard for
laparoscopy, because it's big enough that you can see everything you
need to see, but it's not so overbearing that it's obstructing the move-
ment or workflow of the surgical team. So yes, the size of the screen is
a vital consideration, but it's hardly the only one. You should also weigh
the following key variables.
Image quality
Just look at how 4K ultra high-definition has changed the game. With
4K, which is 4 times the resolution of traditional HD, you have the
potential for incredible visualization, where you can magnify some-
thing on the screen 10 to 30 times, with virtually no pixilation. During
one procedure, I measured 1 inch on my instrument, and it came up
measuring 29 inches on the screen. In my world, this can be incredi-
bly advantageous when it comes to suturing for revisional bariatric
surgery or other tasks that require the utmost care and precision.
I love 3D, and I wish I had it for everything. If I don't have 3D for a
particular case, I might hesitate because I feel slightly uncomfortable.
A 2015 study published in Obesity Surgery that compared 2D to 3D in
laparoscopic bariatric surgery showed that surgeons experienced bet-
ter depth perception and reported less strain with the 3D system,
especially during longer procedures. I've found that 3D reduces OR
time.
Given the size, brightness and contrast of today's screens — OLED
(organic light-emitting diode) should be the standard — I no longer
have to operate in a dark OR. I can use the ambient green lights or, if
they're not available, just leave the overheads on. As a result, my eyes
J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7 • O U T PA T I E N TS U R G E R Y. N E T • 7 7
