Evaluation of Clinical Usefulness of a Medical Monitor Equipped With an Organic Electroluminescence Panel in Comparison With Liquid Crystal Display Monitors
article
OA: closed
CC0
AI-generated summary
This study evaluated the clinical usefulness of an organic electroluminescence panel medical monitor by comparing it against liquid crystal display monitors.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
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.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
References (13)
- W1946946566 via openalex
- W1965216816 via openalex
- W1978879303 via openalex
- W1985063835 via openalex
- W1990213250 via openalex
- W2004538429 via openalex
- W2015964790 via openalex
- W2026777394 via openalex
- W2028590128 via openalex
- W2074613927 via openalex
- W2123108246 via openalex
- W2163467256 via openalex
- W2329323118 via openalex
Source provenance
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0
· commercial use OK