Given that more and more surgical procedures rely on imaging as a key navigational tool, this is a welcome development. Clarity of video and range of sight are instrumental in allowing surgeons to carry out these procedures with specialized instruments instead of a reliance on heavy cutting.
I'm surprised at the claims made here. HD video in surgery typically is routed via digital formats -- HD-SDI or DVI for live video, and ethernet for stored stuff. With digital video, there is no loss of resolution in the transmission from place to place -- that is a primary reason for using it. Standard definition video is almost always analog (NTSC and PAL formats being the most common legacy types), and it can suffer some loss of resolution in long distance transmission, or in moving from device to device, if care is not taken. But high definition video has been a digital format since its adoption, and it delivers full resolution all the time, up until complete loss of signal -- there is no degradation with distance. While optical transmission has some advantages, and can have a nice high data rate, I see nothing compelling for most ORs in this device.
AJ2X, if HDMI is being used in these OR video systems, there are issues with tranmission over copper HDMI cables beyond 30m. You are correct in that digital video signals such as HDMI will not have any loss of resoltuion over long distances. However since HDMI is digital, beyond 30m with copper HDMI cables there will be compatability issues with some HDMI equipment leading to complete loss of the video signal.
There are some HDMI "boosters" that may add another 10m to the effective copper cable length, but optical HDMi cables are the best solution for longer cable lengths. Since there are explosive gases used in ORs, opitical HDMI cables also offer a safer way to transport HD video signals than with copper HDMI cables.
dbarto; You are correct about HDMI having signal-quality degradation over distance in wire, as all signals do without repeaters or equalizers of some sort. Optical transmission is better at that sort of thing, though it needs repeaters also. But the claims for this optical device were about resolution improvements, and it cannot deliver that.
Incidentally, HDMI is not common in laparoscopic camera-aided surgery -- it's mostly HD-SDI in the US and DVI-D in Europe. And the explosive-gas argument is a non-issue: ORs have long been full of electronic equipment operating at much higher voltages and powers than are present in any video transmission method.
NadineJ -- This device, inserted in a digital video transmission system, cannot deliver any improvement in video resolution. The resolution is set by the camera -- anything added to it can only degrade the resolution or at best maintain it.
Long distance digital video transmission by optical fibers (and other means) is pretty well-established and successful, and has and will work well for telesurgery and robotics.
I did note the "if" in your statement, which is a throwaway word here to emphasize the statement about "exponentially better picture". Nowhere in the article is "exponentially" used, so it looked to me like you were trying to claim even more amazing things for this product. It looked like a shill comment to me, which I don't think was your intention.
Don't get me wrong -- this irtem from Omron is no doubt a useful device, and I can see places where it might be productively used. But the claim that "Digital signals typically travelled over copper-based cables, and resolution was lost in the process" is just not accurate. Technically inaccurate statements and publicity flack do not make a "good article."
In 2012, 2.2 million people pledged $319 million to kick-start more than 18,000 of its projects on Kickstarter.com. Here's a look at some of the most inspired ideas from the ultimate crowdfunding platform.