Literature DB >> 30256710

A Suggestion on How to Compare 2D and 3D Laparoscopy: A Qualitative Analysis of the Literature and Randomized Pilot Study.

Sabine Zundel1, Dirk Lehnick2, Marie Heyne-Pietschmann1, Mike Trück1, Philipp Szavay1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The results of studies comparing two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy have shown variable results. We aimed to review the literature and develop an appropriate instrument to compare 2D and 3D laparoscopy. We further aimed to use the data extracted to perform a pilot study.
METHODS: Sixty-seven recent articles on 3D laparoscopy were reviewed and data extracted on factors influencing outcome variables. These variables were used to design a pilot study of 28 novices using a randomized crossover design. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
RESULTS: Seven themes were identified to influence the outcome of 3D studies: applied technique (1), experience of subjects (2), study design (3), learning curve (4), subjective qualitative reports (5), laparoscopic tasks (6), and chosen outcome variables (7). The consecutively developed five laparoscopic simulation tasks contained placing a rubber band over hooks, ring and pearl transfer, threading a pipe cleaner through loops, and placing a suturise. The pilot study showed a primary benefit of 3D laparoscopy that was unrelated to repetition. Two tasks served well to assess first-time performance, and two tasks promise to serve well to assess a learning curve if performed repeatedly.
CONCLUSION: We were able to identify important issues influencing the outcome of studies analyzing 3D laparoscopy. These may help evaluate future studies. The developed tasks resulted in meaningful data in favor of 3D visualization, but further studies are necessary to confirm the pilot test results.

Keywords:  3D; laparoscopy; novice; simulation; three-dimensional; training

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30256710     DOI: 10.1089/lap.2018.0164

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


  5 in total

1.  Prospective randomized controlled study for comparison of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Kanghaeng Lee; Sang Il Youn; Yongjoon Won; Sa-Hong Min; Young Suk Park; Sang-Hoon Ahn; Do Joong Park; Hyung-Ho Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison.

Authors:  Graziano Ceccarelli; Gianluca Costa; Valentina Ferraro; Michele De Rosa; Fabio Rondelli; Walter Bugiantella
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A secondary learning curve in 3D versus 2D imaging in laparoscopic training of surgical novices.

Authors:  Min Li Kang; Chiew Meng Johnny Wong; Hiangjin Tan; Azri Bohari; Tun Oo Han; Yuen Soon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Basic Laparoscopic Skills Training Is Equally Effective Using 2D Compared to 3D Visualization: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Eliana Montanari; Richard Schwameis; Nikolaus Veit-Rubin; Lorenz Kuessel; Heinrich Husslein
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-05-10       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  3D Versus 4K Display System - Influence of "State-of-the-art"-Display Technique on Surgical Performance (IDOSP-study) in Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Randomized Cross-over Trial.

Authors:  Roger Wahba; Rabi Datta; Jana Bußhoff; Thomas Bruns; Andrea Hedergott; Caroline Gietzelt; Georg Dieplinger; Hans Fuchs; Bernd Morgenstern; Desdemona Möller; Martin Hellmich; Christiane J Bruns; Dirk L Stippel
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 13.787

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.