Literature DB >> 26863202

Three-Dimensional Versus Two-Dimensional Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy.

Giuseppe Currò1, Andrea Cogliandolo1, Marcello Bartolotta1, Giuseppe Navarra1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To address the issue whether three dimensional (3D) offers real operative time advantages to the surgical procedure (primary endpoint) and significant reduction of surgeon's physical strain (secondary endpoint), we have retrospectively analyzed two consecutive series of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) performed by a single experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeon with two different imaging systems (two dimensional [2D] and 3D). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since January 2014, 25 consecutive patients with right colon cancer underwent 3D LRH and other 25 consecutive ones received a 2D LRH by a single experienced surgeon. After the insertion of the access ports, the surgical procedure has been divided in component tasks and the execution times were compared. Upon completion of each procedure, the consultant surgeon was asked to complete a nonvalidated subjective questionnaire to evaluate quality of depth perception and surgical strain.
RESULTS: The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks were not significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups, except for the second task "side-to-side ileotransverse anastomosis" (P < .05). The surgeon experienced better depth perception with the 3D system and subjectively reported less strain using the 3D vision system rather than the 2D system, particularly during longer procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional imaging seems not to influence the performance time of laparoscopic right colon cancer surgery when the surgeon is experienced in 2D laparoscopy, although the 3D system seems to offer better depth perception and to subjectively determine less physical strain compared to 2D vision. Further comparative studies are necessary to address the issue whether novice surgeons could benefit from a reduced learning curve using 3D vision and to verify with greater numbers if 3D, even with a similar operative time, can reduce perioperative complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26863202     DOI: 10.1089/lap.2015.0557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A        ISSN: 1092-6429            Impact factor:   1.878


  12 in total

1.  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

2.  Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nereo Vettoretto; Luisa Reggiani; Roberto Cirocchi; Brandon Michael Henry; Piero Covarelli; Vito D'Andrea; Georgi Popivanov; Justus Randolph
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  [3 D laparoscopy versus 2 D laparoscopy : An up to date evaluation].

Authors:  A Buia; S Farkas
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Comparison of short-term surgical outcome between 3D and 2D laparoscopy surgery for gastrointestinal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bochao Zhao; Wu Lv; Di Mei; Rui Luo; Shiyang Bao; Baojun Huang; Jie Lin
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

Authors:  Rana M Higgins; Matthew J Frelich; Matthew E Bosler; Jon C Gould
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Three-dimensional Versus Two-dimensional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  George Pantalos; Dimitrios Patsouras; Eleftherios Spartalis; Dimitrios Dimitroulis; Gerasimos Tsourouflis; Nikolaos Nikiteas
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 7.  Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ji Cheng; Jinbo Gao; Xiaoming Shuai; Guobin Wang; Kaixiong Tao
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-10-25

8.  Why laparoscopists may opt for three-dimensional view: a summary of the full HTA report on 3D versus 2D laparoscopy by S.I.C.E. (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie).

Authors:  Nereo Vettoretto; Emanuela Foglia; Lucrezia Ferrario; Alberto Arezzo; Roberto Cirocchi; Gianfranco Cocorullo; Giuseppe Currò; Domenico Marchi; Giuseppe Portale; Chiara Gerardi; Umberto Nocco; Michele Tringali; Gabriele Anania; Micaela Piccoli; Gianfranco Silecchia; Mario Morino; Andrea Valeri; Emauele Lettieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Case-matched study of short-term effects of 3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer.

Authors:  QingMin Zeng; Fuming Lei; ZhaoYa Gao; YanZhao Wang; Qing Kun Gao
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  Comparing short-time outcomes of three-dimensional and two-dimensional totally laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer using overlapped delta-shaped anastomosis.

Authors:  Hao Su; Weisen Jin; Peng Wang; Mandula Bao; Xuewei Wang; Chuanduo Zhao; Xishan Wang; Zhixiang Zhou; Haitao Zhou
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.