Does stereoscopic imaging improve the memorization of medical imaging by neurosurgeons? Experience of a single institution

Stereoscopic imaging has increasingly been used in anatomical teaching and neurosurgery. The aim of our study was to analyze the potential utility of stereoscopic imaging as a tool for memorizing neurosurgical patient cases compared to conventional monoscopic visualization. A total of 16 residents and 6 consultants from the Department of Neurosurgery at Charite - Universitatsmedizin Berlin were recruited for the study. They were divided into two equally experienced groups. A comparative analysis of both imaging modalities was conducted in which four different cases were assessed by the participants. Following the image assessment, two questionnaires, one analyzing the subjective judgment using the 5-point Likert Scale and the other assessing the memorization and anatomical accuracy, were completed by all participants. Both groups had the same median year of experience (5) and stereoacuity (<= 75 s of arc). The analysis of the first questionnaire demonstrated significant subjective superiority of the monoscopic imaging in evaluation of the pathology (median: monoscopic: 4; stereoscopic: 3; p =0.020) and in handling of the system (median: monoscopic: 5; stereoscopic: 2; p < 0.001). The second questionnaire showed that the anatomical characterization of the pathologies was comparable between both visualization methods. Most participants rated the stereoscopic visualization as worse compared to the monoscopic visualization, probably due to a lack of familiarity with the newer technique. Stereoscopic imaging, however, was not objectively inferior to traditional monoscopic imaging for anatomical comprehension. Further methodological developments and incorporation in routine clinical workflows will most likely enhance the usability and acceptance of stereoscopic visualization.

Automated summary

The study compared traditional monoscopic and stereoscopic imaging for memorizing neurosurgical patient cases, finding that monoscopic imaging was subjectively superior in evaluating pathology but anatomical characterization was comparable between both methods. Most participants rated stereoscopic imaging as worse, likely due to lack of familiarity with the newer technique. However, stereoscopic imaging was not objectively inferior in anatomical comprehension compared to traditional monoscopic imaging. Further developments and integration into clinical workflows will likely enhance the usability and acceptance of stereoscopic visualization.