iPhone、反射和黑胶唱片:智能手机拍出的术中照片最好吗?

IF 1 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-03 DOI:10.1080/17453054.2021.1951601
Jonathan Garnier, Jacques Ewald, Anais Palen, Jean Robert Delpero, Olivier Turrini
{"title":"iPhone、反射和黑胶唱片:智能手机拍出的术中照片最好吗?","authors":"Jonathan Garnier,&nbsp;Jacques Ewald,&nbsp;Anais Palen,&nbsp;Jean Robert Delpero,&nbsp;Olivier Turrini","doi":"10.1080/17453054.2021.1951601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Surgical field photography is a tough exercise: surgeons dedicate the required time for photography even during complex surgeries; the intense lighting of the operating field works against photography, and the surgeon has to utilise whatever equipment is available. We selected five complex interventions and two surgeons (one with an iPhone<sup>®</sup> and one with a Digital Single Lens Reflex [DSLR] camera) who each took a photograph of the operating field. The source of photographs was blinded, and the image quality was scored using a 5-point Likert scale by three groups of team members with differing experiences: six senior surgeons, two junior surgeons, and four surgical residents. We evaluated the resolution (adequate for clinical interpretation), colour (appear true and natural), contrast (adequate to distinguish different structures), and overall quality. The mean ± SEM overall image quality was similar for both the smartphone and DSLR (3.7 ± 0.1 vs. 3.8 ± 0.11; <i>p</i> = 0.87), as were most of the scores for each image characteristic. Surgeons seek objectivity and efficiency. The smartphone is a more convenient photographic equipment and produces identical results than the DSLR. Human beings can be sensitive to image quality. The DSLR image was found to be sharper, however, this was found to be imperceptible.</p>","PeriodicalId":43868,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine","volume":"44 4","pages":"151-156"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The iPhone, the reflex, and the vinyl record: is the smartphone taking the best intraoperative photographs?\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Garnier,&nbsp;Jacques Ewald,&nbsp;Anais Palen,&nbsp;Jean Robert Delpero,&nbsp;Olivier Turrini\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17453054.2021.1951601\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Surgical field photography is a tough exercise: surgeons dedicate the required time for photography even during complex surgeries; the intense lighting of the operating field works against photography, and the surgeon has to utilise whatever equipment is available. We selected five complex interventions and two surgeons (one with an iPhone<sup>®</sup> and one with a Digital Single Lens Reflex [DSLR] camera) who each took a photograph of the operating field. The source of photographs was blinded, and the image quality was scored using a 5-point Likert scale by three groups of team members with differing experiences: six senior surgeons, two junior surgeons, and four surgical residents. We evaluated the resolution (adequate for clinical interpretation), colour (appear true and natural), contrast (adequate to distinguish different structures), and overall quality. The mean ± SEM overall image quality was similar for both the smartphone and DSLR (3.7 ± 0.1 vs. 3.8 ± 0.11; <i>p</i> = 0.87), as were most of the scores for each image characteristic. Surgeons seek objectivity and efficiency. The smartphone is a more convenient photographic equipment and produces identical results than the DSLR. Human beings can be sensitive to image quality. The DSLR image was found to be sharper, however, this was found to be imperceptible.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"44 4\",\"pages\":\"151-156\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2021.1951601\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/8/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2021.1951601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

手术现场摄影是一项艰苦的工作:即使在复杂的手术中,外科医生也会花费必要的时间进行摄影;手术现场的强光不利于摄影,外科医生必须利用任何可用的设备。我们选择了五个复杂的介入手术和两个外科医生(一个使用iPhone®,另一个使用数码单反相机),他们每人拍摄了一张手术区域的照片。照片的来源是盲的,图像质量使用5分李克特量表由三组不同经验的团队成员评分:六名高级外科医生,两名初级外科医生和四名外科住院医生。我们评估了分辨率(足以用于临床解释)、颜色(看起来真实自然)、对比度(足以区分不同的结构)和整体质量。智能手机和数码单反相机的平均±SEM整体图像质量相似(3.7±0.1 vs 3.8±0.11;P = 0.87),每个图像特征的大部分得分也是如此。外科医生追求客观和效率。智能手机是一种更方便的摄影设备,与数码单反相机相比,它能产生同样的效果。人类对图像质量很敏感。数码单反图像被发现更清晰,然而,这被发现是难以察觉的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The iPhone, the reflex, and the vinyl record: is the smartphone taking the best intraoperative photographs?

Surgical field photography is a tough exercise: surgeons dedicate the required time for photography even during complex surgeries; the intense lighting of the operating field works against photography, and the surgeon has to utilise whatever equipment is available. We selected five complex interventions and two surgeons (one with an iPhone® and one with a Digital Single Lens Reflex [DSLR] camera) who each took a photograph of the operating field. The source of photographs was blinded, and the image quality was scored using a 5-point Likert scale by three groups of team members with differing experiences: six senior surgeons, two junior surgeons, and four surgical residents. We evaluated the resolution (adequate for clinical interpretation), colour (appear true and natural), contrast (adequate to distinguish different structures), and overall quality. The mean ± SEM overall image quality was similar for both the smartphone and DSLR (3.7 ± 0.1 vs. 3.8 ± 0.11; p = 0.87), as were most of the scores for each image characteristic. Surgeons seek objectivity and efficiency. The smartphone is a more convenient photographic equipment and produces identical results than the DSLR. Human beings can be sensitive to image quality. The DSLR image was found to be sharper, however, this was found to be imperceptible.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine
Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The Journal is a quarterly, international, peer-reviewed journal that acts as a vehicle for the interchange of information and ideas in the production, manipulation, storage and transport of images for medical education, records and research.
期刊最新文献
MSc medical art masters showcase 2024, University of Dundee. The Open Anatomy Explorer - a journey towards accessible open-source 3D learning environments. Testing a signal-processing image analysis technology in hospital on suspicious pigmented naevi referred for biopsy. Doctors without borders-integrating visual art in the medical school curriculum. What is the effect of posting video abstracts on journal article impact?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1