Giuseppe Currò1, Giuseppe La Malfa2, Antonio Caizzone2, Valentina Rampulla2, Giuseppe Navarra2. 1. Department of Human Pathology, University Hospital of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria 1, 98100, Messina, Italy. jose.c@tiscali.it. 2. Department of Human Pathology, University Hospital of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria 1, 98100, Messina, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To address the issue whether three-dimensional (3D) offers real operative time advantages to the laparoscopic surgical procedure, we have designed a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparison of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) imaging during two different bariatric procedures. METHODS:Forty morbidly obese patients were randomized on the day of surgery by a random computer-generated allocation list to receive either a 3D high-definition (HD) display or 2D HD imaging system laparoscopic bariatric procedure by a single experienced surgeon. Forty operations were performed with either a 3D HD display or 2D HD imaging system. After the insertion of the access ports, both surgical procedures were divided in component tasks, and the execution times were compared. RESULTS: The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks were not significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups during sleeve gastrectomy. The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks, except for the first one, were significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups during mini-gastric bypass (p < 0.05). The surgeon experienced better depth perception with the 3D system and subjectively reported less strain using 3D vision system rather than the 2D system particularly during longer procedure. CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging seems to decrease the performance time of more difficult bariatric procedures, which involve surgical tasks as suturing and intestinal measurement. Further comparative studies are necessary to address the issue if novice surgeons could benefit from reduced learning curve requested with 3D vision and to verify with greater numbers if 3D imaging can reduce complications.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To address the issue whether three-dimensional (3D) offers real operative time advantages to the laparoscopic surgical procedure, we have designed a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparison of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) imaging during two different bariatric procedures. METHODS: Forty morbidly obesepatients were randomized on the day of surgery by a random computer-generated allocation list to receive either a 3D high-definition (HD) display or 2D HD imaging system laparoscopic bariatric procedure by a single experienced surgeon. Forty operations were performed with either a 3D HD display or 2D HD imaging system. After the insertion of the access ports, both surgical procedures were divided in component tasks, and the execution times were compared. RESULTS: The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks were not significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups during sleeve gastrectomy. The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks, except for the first one, were significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups during mini-gastric bypass (p < 0.05). The surgeon experienced better depth perception with the 3D system and subjectively reported less strain using 3D vision system rather than the 2D system particularly during longer procedure. CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging seems to decrease the performance time of more difficult bariatric procedures, which involve surgical tasks as suturing and intestinal measurement. Further comparative studies are necessary to address the issue if novice surgeons could benefit from reduced learning curve requested with 3D vision and to verify with greater numbers if 3D imaging can reduce complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
2D laparoscopy; 3D laparoscopy; Bariatric surgery
Authors: D Cottam; F G Qureshi; S G Mattar; S Sharma; S Holover; G Bonanomi; R Ramanathan; P Schauer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-04-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: João Eduardo Marques Tavares de Menezes Ettinger; Paulo Vicente dos Santos Filho; Euler Azaro; Carlos Augusto Bastos Melo; Edvaldo Fahel; Paulo Benigno Pena Batista Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2005 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Vincenza Snow; Nick Fitterman; E Rodney Hornbake; Valerie A Lawrence; Gerald W Smetana; Kevin Weiss; Douglas K Owens; Mark Aronson; Patricia Barry; Donald E Casey; J Thomas Cross; Nick Fitterman; Katherine D Sherif; Kevin B Weiss Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 25.391
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