Literature DB >> 25002241

A randomized prospective study comparing acquisition of laparoscopic skills in three-dimensional (3D) vs. two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy.

B Alaraimi1, W El Bakbak, S Sarker, S Makkiyah, A Al-Marzouq, R Goriparthi, A Bouhelal, V Quan, B Patel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the performance of novices with three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy using Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks.
METHODS: Fifty-six novices with no uncorrected visual problems were randomly allocated to 2D and 3D groups. All candidates practiced FLS tasks on a box trainer until they achieved proficiency. Their performance was assessed by considering completion time, number of repetitions, and number of errors following the validated FLS proficiency criteria.
RESULTS: Twenty-five participants in each group completed the training curriculum. The median performance time (in minutes) for the 3D group was 216, which was less than that of the 2D group of 247 min (P = 0.266). The median numbers of repetitions and errors were lower for the 3D group versus the 2D group: 108 versus 121 (P = 0.008) and 27 versus 105 (P < 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Stereoscopic vision improved accuracy in laparoscopic skills for novices, which was manifested in reduced numbers of repetitions and errors. However, it does not affect the global performance time across all tasks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25002241     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2674-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  20 in total

1.  Advanced stereoscopic projection technology significantly improves novice performance of minimally invasive surgical skills.

Authors:  R Smith; A Day; T Rockall; K Ballard; M Bailey; I Jourdan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Three-dimensional laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex-vivo laparoscopic tasks.

Authors:  Patrick Honeck; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Jens Rassweiler; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Video-assisted surgery represents more than a loss of three-dimensional vision.

Authors:  Anthony G Gallagher; E Matt Ritter; Andrew B Lederman; David A McClusky; C Daniel Smith
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Three-Dimensional (3D) Vision: Does It Improve Laparoscopic Skills? An Assessment of a 3D Head-Mounted Visualization System.

Authors:  Sam B Bhayani; Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2005

5.  Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems.

Authors:  J Heemskerk; R Zandbergen; J G Maessen; J W M Greve; N D Bouvy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method.

Authors:  O J Wagner; M Hagen; A Kurmann; S Horgan; D Candinas; S A Vorburger
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  The effect of CyberDome, a novel 3-dimensional dome-shaped display system, on laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Kenoki Ohuchida; Hajime Kenmotsu; Atsuyuki Yamamoto; Kazuya Sawada; Takehito Hayami; Kenichi Morooka; Hiroshi Hoshino; Munenori Uemura; Kozo Konishi; Daisuke Yoshida; Takashi Maeda; Satoshi Ieiri; Kazuo Tanoue; Masao Tanaka; Makoto Hashizume
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 2.924

8.  Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills.

Authors:  A M Derossis; G M Fried; M Abrahamowicz; H H Sigman; J S Barkun; J L Meakins
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Application of stereoscopic visualization on surgical skill acquisition in novices.

Authors:  Manisha Mistry; Victoria A Roach; Timothy D Wilson
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 2.891

10.  Evaluation of three laparoscopic modalities: robotics versus three-dimensional vision laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy.

Authors:  Chad A LaGrange; Curtis J Clark; Eric W Gerber; Stephen E Strup
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.942

View more
  45 in total

Review 1.  [Specific complications of minimally invasive surgery].

Authors:  N Runkel; O Jurcovan
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Prospective randomized controlled study for comparison of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Kanghaeng Lee; Sang Il Youn; Yongjoon Won; Sa-Hong Min; Young Suk Park; Sang-Hoon Ahn; Do Joong Park; Hyung-Ho Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stine Maya Dreier Sørensen; Mona Meral Savran; Lars Konge; Flemming Bjerrum
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  3D visualization reduces operating time when compared to high-definition 2D in laparoscopic liver resection: a case-matched study.

Authors:  Vimalraj Velayutham; David Fuks; Takeo Nomi; Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Brice Gayet
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Comparison of 3D endoscopy and conventional 2D endoscopy in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo animal study.

Authors:  Kosuke Nomura; Daisuke Kikuchi; Mitsuru Kaise; Toshiro Iizuka; Yorinari Ochiai; Yugo Suzuki; Yumiko Fukuma; Masami Tanaka; Yosuke Okamoto; Satoshi Yamashita; Akira Matsui; Toshifumi Mitani; Shu Hoteya
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Augmented visualization with depth perception cues to improve the surgeon's performance in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Lucio Tommaso De Paolis; Valerio De Luca
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 2.602

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

Authors:  Alberto Arezzo; Nereo Vettoretto; Nader K Francis; Marco Augusto Bonino; Nathan J Curtis; Daniele Amparore; Simone Arolfo; Manuel Barberio; Luigi Boni; Ronit Brodie; Nicole Bouvy; Elisa Cassinotti; Thomas Carus; Enrico Checcucci; Petra Custers; Michele Diana; Marilou Jansen; Joris Jaspers; Gadi Marom; Kota Momose; Beat P Müller-Stich; Kyokazu Nakajima; Felix Nickel; Silvana Perretta; Francesco Porpiglia; Francisco Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Marlies Schijven; Gianfranco Silecchia; Roberto Passera; Yoav Mintz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Randomized, controlled trial comparing clinical outcomes of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an interim report.

Authors:  Jun Lu; Chao-Hui Zheng; Hua-Long Zheng; Ping Li; Jian-Wei Xie; Jia-Bin Wang; Jian-Xian Lin; Qi-Yue Chen; Long-Long Cao; Mi Lin; Ru-Hong Tu; Chang-Ming Huang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Quantitative evaluation of 3D imaging in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Rie Matsunaga; Yuji Nishizawa; Norio Saito; Akihiro Kobayashi; Takeshi Ohdaira; Masaaki Ito
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 10.  Three-dimensional thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction.

Authors:  C Jacobs; M M Plöger; S Scheidt; P P Roessler; S Koob; K Kabir; C Jacobs; D C Wirtz; C Burger; R Pflugmacher; F Trommer
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 1.154

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.