title: Feasibility study of utilizing ultraportable projectors for endoscopic video display (with videos).
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Modern endoscopy requires video display. Recent miniaturized, ultraportable projectors are affordable, durable, and offer quality image display.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Explore feasibility of using ultraportable projectors in endoscopy.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective bench-top comparison; clinical feasibility study. Masked comparison study of images displayed via 2 Samsung ultraportable light-emitting diode projectors (pocket-sized SP-HO3; pico projector SP-P410M) and 1 Microvision Showwx-II Laser pico projector. BENCH-TOP FEASIBILITY STUDY: Prerecorded endoscopic video was streamed via computer. CLINICAL COMPARISON STUDY: Live high-definition endoscopy video was simultaneously displayed through each processor onto a standard liquid crystal display monitor and projected onto a portable, pull-down projection screen. Endoscopists, endoscopy nurses, and technicians rated video images; ratings were analyzed by linear mixed-effects regression models with random intercepts.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All projectors were easy to set up, adjust, focus, and operate, with no real-time lapse for any. Bench-top study outcomes: Samsung pico preferred to Laser pico, overall rating 1.5 units higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7-2.4), P < .001; Samsung pocket preferred to Laser pico, 3.3 units higher (95% CI = 2.4-4.1), P < .001; Samsung pocket preferred to Samsung pico, 1.7 units higher (95% CI = 0.9-2.5), P < .001. The clinical comparison study confirmed the Samsung pocket projector as best, with a higher overall rating of 2.3 units (95% CI = 1.6-3.0), P < .001, than Samsung pico.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Low brightness currently limits pico projector use in clinical endoscopy. The pocket projector, with higher brightness levels (170 lumens), is clinically useful. Continued improvements to ultraportable projectors will supply a needed niche in endoscopy through portability, reduced cost, and equal or better image quality.
authors.affiliation: University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA stang@umc.edu.
authors.forename: Shou-Jiang
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Tang
authors.affiliation: University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
authors.forename: Amanda
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Fehring
authors.affiliation: University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
authors.forename: Mac
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Mclemore
authors.affiliation: University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Griswold
authors.affiliation: University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
authors.forename: Wanmei
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.affiliation: University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
authors.forename: Elizabeth R
authors.initials: ER
authors.lastname: Paine
authors.affiliation: University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
authors.forename: Ruonan
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.affiliation: Mississippi State University, MS, USA.
authors.forename: Filip
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: To
mesh_terms: D004724:Endoscopy / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D006804:Ergonomics / Q000295:instrumentation; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006801:Humans; D011446:Prospective Studies; D020535:Video-Assisted Surgery / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods
keywords: ergonomics and/or human factors study; flexible endoscopy; interventional endoscopy