Comparative study of 2‐<scp>D</scp> and bichanneled 3‐<scp>D</scp> laparoscopic images: Is there a difference?

Tung, Karen L.M.; Yang, George Pei Cheung; Li, Michael K.W.

doi:10.1111/ases.12194

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Komaei et al [10] conducted a systematic review and found only five randomized controlled trials comparing 2D to 3D in LCC reporting all together 209 patients [10]. Three of these trials reported a significant reduction in operative time in 3D LCC [9, 11, 12], while two did not find such difference [4, 13]. The systematic review concluded that bigger cohort sizes are needed to assess 3D laparoscopy and justify the increased costs of new, more expensive 3D systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhile 3D laparoscopy increases surgical performance under laboratory conditions, it is unclear whether it improves outcomes in real clinical scenarios. The aim of this trial was to determine whether the 3D laparoscopy can enhance surgical efficacy in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCC).MethodThis prospective randomized controlled study was conducted between February 2015 and April 2017 in a day case unit of an academic teaching hospital. Patients scheduled for elective LCC were assessed for eligibility. The exclusion criteria were: (1) planned secondary operation in addition to LCC, (2) predicted to be high-risk for conversion, and (3) surgeons with less than five previous 3D laparoscopic procedures. Patients were operated on by 12 residents and 3 attendings. The primary endpoint was operation time. All surgeons were tested for stereoaquity (Randot® stereotest). The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02357589).ResultsA total of 210 patients were randomized; 105 to 3D laparoscopy and 104 to 2D laparoscopy. Median operation time as similar in the 3D and 2D laparoscopy groups (49 min vs. 48 min, p = 0.703). Operation times were similar in subgroup analyses for surgeon’s sex (male vs. female), surgeon’s status (resident vs. attending), surgeon’s stereovision (stereopsis 10 vs. less than 10), surgeon’s experience (performed 200 LCCs or below versus over 200 LCCs), or patient’s BMI (≤ 25 vs. 25–30 vs. > 30). No differences in intra- or postoperative complications were noted between the 3D and 2D groups.Conclusion3D laparoscopy did not show any advantages over 2D laparoscopy in LCC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present study is the first clinical study to compare 3D and 4K technologies. Of the three previous studies among expert surgeons comparing 3D HD with 2D HD laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Sahu et al reported a 14 min (26%) time benefit with 3D [9], Bilgen et al reported a 9 min (31%) benefit with 3D [20], whilst Tung et al reported no difference [21]. However, these were smaller studies with less statistical power.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is 3D faster and safer than 4K laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised-controlled trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Laparoscopic surgery has well-established benefits for patients; however, laparoscopic procedures have a long and difficult learning curve, in large part due to the lack of stereoscopic depth perception. Developments in high-definition and stereoscopic imaging have attempted to overcome this. Three-dimensional high-definition (3D HD) systems are thought to improve operating times compared to two-dimensional high-definition systems. However their performance against new, ultra-high-definition ('4K') systems is not known. Methods Patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised to 3D HD or 4K laparoscopy. Operative videos were recorded, and the time from gallbladder exposure to separation from the liver (minus on table cholangiogram) was calculated. Blinded video assessment was performed to calculate intraoperative error scores. Results One hundred and twenty patients were randomised, of which 109 were analysed (3D HD n = 54; 4K n = 55). No reduction in operative time was detected with 3D HD compared to 4K laparoscopy (median [IQR]; 23.41 min [17.00-37.98] vs 20.90 min [17.67-33.03]; p = 0.91); nor was there any decrease observed in error scores (60 [56-62] vs 58 [56][57][58][59][60]; p = 0.27), complications or reattendance. Stone spillage occurred more frequently with 3D HD, but there were no other differences in individual error rates. Gallbladder grade and operating surgeon had significant effects on time to complete the operation. Gallbladder grade also had a significant effect on the error score. Conclusions A 3D HD laparoscopic system did not reduce operative time or error scores during laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with a new 4K imaging system.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

show abstract

“…68 studies (94.4%) were performed in box trainer simulators with three animal experiments (2 ex-vivo, one live [84]). Only two studies included operating room performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomies [2,73] . Participants performed an average of three tasks (IQR 2-4, range 1-10).…”

Section: Statement the Use Of 3d Imaging Systems Improves Laparoscopi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After a Health Technology Assessment on 3D vision technology completed last year, the aim of one of the consensus meetings 2018 of the EAES was to generate a guideline on the same topic based on best available evidence and expert opinions of EAES Technology Committee members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of research fellows, an expert panel with extensive engineering and clinical experience in the use of 3D vision technology discussed statements and recommendations. Twenty-two statements and 2 recommendations were obtained unanimously by the experts and were discussed and voted at the consensus meeting of the EAES in London in May 2018 by the attendees of the meeting. The most important regarding general topics were: a) 3D vision improves outcomes for junior trainees in performing standardized tasks in box trainers, only when 3D systems with HD screen and passive polarized glasses are used and only when properly set up; b) The use of 3D imaging systems improves laparoscopic box trainer task completion time and error rate but this benefit has not been studied in clinical practice. The most important regarding clinical setting were: a) 3D laparoscopy shortens the operating time in all the analysed surgical settings (general surgery, urology and gynaecology); b) The pooling of data from the different settings seems to suggest a lowering in the overall rate of complications after surgical procedures involving suturing in 3D laparoscopy, especially in the gynaecology setting; indeed data are too heterogeneous and weak to sustain any recommendation, other than implications for future research. These produced 2 recommendations: a) 3D laparoscopy might shorten operative times; b) Future research is recommended to demonstrate that 3D vision may lower complications rate in laparoscopy. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements.These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing help when using 3D vision technology.

show abstract

Comparative study of 2‐D and bichanneled 3‐D laparoscopic images: Is there a difference?

Abstract: We believe that the 3-D camera system can allow young surgeons to perform standard laparoscopic tasks safely and quickly, so as to accelerate the learning curve. However, new-generation 3-D systems will be essential to overcome surgeons' discomfort.

Cited by 11 publications

References 7 publications

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Is 3D faster and safer than 4K laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised-controlled trial

The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About