BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Three-dimensional (3D) imaging, a recent technical innovation in laparoscopic surgery, has been postulated to enhance depth perception and facilitate operations. However, it has never been evaluated in conditions where the focus is close to the optical system. Thus, it is unclear whether 3D cameras can improve laparoscopic surgical performance in neonates and infants. We tested 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) vision during laparoscopic surgery in rabbits, mimicking the size of a neonatal patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cadaver New Zealand white rabbits (mean weight 2,755 g) were operated by two surgeons experienced in 2D laparoscopic surgery and two surgical residents (with basic skills in 2D laparoscopy). All surgeons had never performed 3D laparoscopic surgery. Animals underwent six operations: Nissen fundoplication, small bowel anastomosis, and closure of a diaphragmatic defect using either 2D or 3D. Primary endpoint was cumulative operating time and operating time of each operation. Secondary endpoints included the hemodynamic response and psychomental stress level of the surgeons. Finally, subjective data on depth perception were assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: Cumulative operating time of all three types of operations was significantly shorter with 3D laparoscopy in experts (3D: 23.01 ± 5.65 min vs 2D: 29.51 ± 7.51 min, p < 0.01) and residents (3D: 27.95 ± 3.69 min vs 2D: 33.95 ± 6.21 min, p < 0.05). This effect could be shown for each operation in the expert group and the Nissen fundoplication in the resident group. There were no differences in the hemodynamic response as well as the psychomental stress level between 2D and 3D imaging. 3D provided better depth perception. CONCLUSION: 3D laparoscopy in small spaces is associated with a significant shorter operating time. It induces no additional physical or psychomental stress in surgeons naive to 3D imaging. 3D may therefore facilitate minimal invasive surgery in neonates and infants.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Three-dimensional (3D) imaging, a recent technical innovation in laparoscopic surgery, has been postulated to enhance depth perception and facilitate operations. However, it has never been evaluated in conditions where the focus is close to the optical system. Thus, it is unclear whether 3D cameras can improve laparoscopic surgical performance in neonates and infants. We tested 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) vision during laparoscopic surgery in rabbits, mimicking the size of a neonatal patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cadaver New Zealand white rabbits (mean weight 2,755 g) were operated by two surgeons experienced in 2D laparoscopic surgery and two surgical residents (with basic skills in 2D laparoscopy). All surgeons had never performed 3D laparoscopic surgery. Animals underwent six operations: Nissen fundoplication, small bowel anastomosis, and closure of a diaphragmatic defect using either 2D or 3D. Primary endpoint was cumulative operating time and operating time of each operation. Secondary endpoints included the hemodynamic response and psychomental stress level of the surgeons. Finally, subjective data on depth perception were assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: Cumulative operating time of all three types of operations was significantly shorter with 3D laparoscopy in experts (3D: 23.01 ± 5.65 min vs 2D: 29.51 ± 7.51 min, p < 0.01) and residents (3D: 27.95 ± 3.69 min vs 2D: 33.95 ± 6.21 min, p < 0.05). This effect could be shown for each operation in the expert group and the Nissen fundoplication in the resident group. There were no differences in the hemodynamic response as well as the psychomental stress level between 2D and 3D imaging. 3D provided better depth perception. CONCLUSION: 3D laparoscopy in small spaces is associated with a significant shorter operating time. It induces no additional physical or psychomental stress in surgeons naive to 3D imaging. 3D may therefore facilitate minimal invasive surgery in neonates and infants.
Authors: Karim S ElSahwi; Charlene Hooper; Maria C De Leon; Taryn N Gallo; Elena Ratner; Dan-Arin Silasi; Alessandro D Santin; Peter E Schwartz; Thomas J Rutherford; Masoud Azodi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Martina I Klein; Joel S Warm; Michael A Riley; Gerald Matthews; Charles Doarn; James F Donovan; Krishnanath Gaitonde Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-12-07 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
Authors: Ian C Glenn; Nicholas E Bruns; Gabriel Gabarain; Domenic R Craner; Steve J Schomisch; Todd A Ponsky Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 1.827