BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) imaging systems have been introduced worldwide for surgical instrumentation. A difficulty of laparoscopic surgery involves converting two-dimensional (2D) images into 3D images and depth perception rearrangement. 3D imaging may remove the need for depth perception rearrangement and therefore have clinical benefits. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial to compare the surgical outcome of 3D-high-definition (HD) resolution and 2D-HD imaging in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), in order to determine whether an LRP under HD resolution 3D imaging is superior to that under HD resolution 2D imaging in perioperative outcome, feasibility, and fatigue. One-hundred twenty-two patients were randomly assigned to a 2D or 3D group. The primary outcome was time to perform vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA), which is technically demanding and may include a number of technical difficulties considered in laparoscopic surgeries. RESULTS:VUA time was not significantly shorter in the 3D group (26.7 min, mean) compared with the 2D group (30.1 min, mean) (p = 0.11, Student's t test). However, experienced surgeons and 3D-HD imaging were independent predictors for shorter VUA times (p = 0.000, p = 0.014, multivariate logistic regression analysis). Total pneumoperitoneum time was not different. No conversion case from 3D to 2D or LRP to open RP was observed. Fatigue was evaluated by a simulation sickness questionnaire and critical flicker frequency. Results were not different between the two groups. Subjective feasibility and satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the 3D group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a 3D imaging system in LRP may have only limited advantages in decreasing operation times over 2D imaging systems. However, the 3D system increased surgical feasibility and decreased surgeons' effort levels without inducing significant fatigue.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) imaging systems have been introduced worldwide for surgical instrumentation. A difficulty of laparoscopic surgery involves converting two-dimensional (2D) images into 3D images and depth perception rearrangement. 3D imaging may remove the need for depth perception rearrangement and therefore have clinical benefits. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial to compare the surgical outcome of 3D-high-definition (HD) resolution and 2D-HD imaging in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), in order to determine whether an LRP under HD resolution 3D imaging is superior to that under HD resolution 2D imaging in perioperative outcome, feasibility, and fatigue. One-hundred twenty-two patients were randomly assigned to a 2D or 3D group. The primary outcome was time to perform vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA), which is technically demanding and may include a number of technical difficulties considered in laparoscopic surgeries. RESULTS: VUA time was not significantly shorter in the 3D group (26.7 min, mean) compared with the 2D group (30.1 min, mean) (p = 0.11, Student's t test). However, experienced surgeons and 3D-HD imaging were independent predictors for shorter VUA times (p = 0.000, p = 0.014, multivariate logistic regression analysis). Total pneumoperitoneum time was not different. No conversion case from 3D to 2D or LRP to open RP was observed. Fatigue was evaluated by a simulation sickness questionnaire and critical flicker frequency. Results were not different between the two groups. Subjective feasibility and satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the 3D group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a 3D imaging system in LRP may have only limited advantages in decreasing operation times over 2D imaging systems. However, the 3D system increased surgical feasibility and decreased surgeons' effort levels without inducing significant fatigue.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A K Hara; C D Johnson; J E Reed; D A Ahlquist; H Nelson; R L MacCarty; W S Harmsen; D M Ilstrup Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Caroline Savage; Claude Abbou; Alexandre de La Taille; Laurent Salomon; Jens Rassweiler; Marcel Hruza; François Rozet; Xavier Cathelineau; Gunther Janetschek; Faissal Nassar; Ingolf Turk; Alex J Vanni; Inderbir S Gill; Philippe Koenig; Jihad H Kaouk; Luis Martinez Pineiro; Vito Pansadoro; Paolo Emiliozzi; Anders Bjartell; Thomas Jiborn; Christopher Eden; Andrew J Richards; Roland Van Velthoven; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Robert Rabenalt; Li-Ming Su; Christian P Pavlovich; Adam W Levinson; Karim A Touijer; Andrew Vickers; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mobolaji O Ajao; Christian R Larsen; Elmira Manoucheri; Emily R Goggins; Maja T Rask; Mary K B Cox; Avery Mushinski; Xiangmei Gu; Sarah L Cohen; Martin Rudnicki; Jon I Einarsson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.584
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