Riccardo Bertolo1, Enrico Checcucci2, Daniele Amparore2, Riccardo Autorino3, Alberto Breda4, Miguel Ramirez-Backhaus5, Prokar Dasgupta6, Cristian Fiori2, Jens Rassweiler7, Evangelos Liatsikos8, Francesco Porpiglia2. 1. 1 Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute , Cleveland, Ohio. 2. 2 Urology Department, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin , Turin, Italy . 3. 3 Division of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond, Virginia. 4. 4 Uro-Oncology Division and of Kidney Transplant Unit , Fundacio Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain . 5. 5 Department of Urology, Fundación IVO , Valencia, Spain . 6. 6 Division of Urology, King's College and Guy's Hospital , King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom . 7. 7 Department of Urology, Klinikum Heilbronn , Heilbronn, Germany . 8. 8 Urology Department, University of Patras , Patras, Greece .
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Literature regarding experience with three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy in urology has remained scanty, and this might be also related to the parallel explosion of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The study aim was to compare 3D vs two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic approaches for urological procedures in perioperative outcomes in a subgroups analysis of studies reporting procedures requiring intracorporeal suturing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched EMBASE and Medline from database inception to September 22, 2017 for studies comparing patients undergoing 2D vs 3D laparoscopic approach for urological procedures. Two investigators independently selected studies for inclusion. Studies identification and selection was performed according to PRISMA criteria. Quality of the studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa and the Jadad scales for nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and RCTs, respectively. For continuous variables, weighted mean difference was used for quantitative synthesis; for categorical variables, the odds ratio with confidence interval (95% CI) was used instead. A random-effect model was used for pooled estimates to account for heterogeneity. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). RESULTS: Eight comparative studies of interest published in English were found and considered for the quantitative synthesis. Among them, four were RCTs. Six studies regarded procedures requiring intracorporeal suturing and were considered for cumulative-analysis. Meta-analysis did not show any significant difference in operative time. Quantitative synthesis showed advantages for 3D laparoscopy in terms of operative time, blood losses, and length of stay. When limited to studies regarding radical prostatectomy, operative time significantly favored 3D approach (mean difference -35.00, 95% CI -41.34 to -28.67 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review and cumulative-analysis indicated that 3D laparoscopy could offer some advantages in terms of operative time for more challenging procedures requiring intracorporeal suture.
OBJECTIVES: Literature regarding experience with three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy in urology has remained scanty, and this might be also related to the parallel explosion of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The study aim was to compare 3D vs two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic approaches for urological procedures in perioperative outcomes in a subgroups analysis of studies reporting procedures requiring intracorporeal suturing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched EMBASE and Medline from database inception to September 22, 2017 for studies comparing patients undergoing 2D vs 3D laparoscopic approach for urological procedures. Two investigators independently selected studies for inclusion. Studies identification and selection was performed according to PRISMA criteria. Quality of the studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa and the Jadad scales for nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and RCTs, respectively. For continuous variables, weighted mean difference was used for quantitative synthesis; for categorical variables, the odds ratio with confidence interval (95% CI) was used instead. A random-effect model was used for pooled estimates to account for heterogeneity. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). RESULTS: Eight comparative studies of interest published in English were found and considered for the quantitative synthesis. Among them, four were RCTs. Six studies regarded procedures requiring intracorporeal suturing and were considered for cumulative-analysis. Meta-analysis did not show any significant difference in operative time. Quantitative synthesis showed advantages for 3D laparoscopy in terms of operative time, blood losses, and length of stay. When limited to studies regarding radical prostatectomy, operative time significantly favored 3D approach (mean difference -35.00, 95% CI -41.34 to -28.67 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review and cumulative-analysis indicated that 3D laparoscopy could offer some advantages in terms of operative time for more challenging procedures requiring intracorporeal suture.