BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Conventional endoscopy provides two-dimensional (2D) information without depth information. This study compared three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy and 2D endoscopy using an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training model to evaluate the utility of 3D endoscopy. METHODS: Porcine stomach specimens (7 × 7 cm) were prepared from commercially available resected porcine stomachs and a 10-mm hypothetical lesion was marked at the center of each specimen. Specimens were individually placed in an ESD training model, and subjected to either 2D or 3D ESD. En bloc resection rate, perforation rate, incision time, dissection time, and levels of five eyestrain symptoms (fatigue, pain, blurred vision, head-heaviness, and headache; 100-mm visual analog scale) were compared between the 2D and 3D procedures. In a crossover design, 8 endoscopists each performed two 2D and two 3D procedures. RESULTS: All 32 lesions were resected en block, but perforation occurred in one 2D procedure. Incision time was significantly shorter in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD (102.8 ± 42.1 s vs. 135.8 ± 65.7 s, p < 0.05). Dissection time was also significantly shorter in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD (366.3 ± 187.6 s vs. 517.8 ± 282.3 s, p < 0.05). Differences in levels of all symptoms except blurred vision between before and after ESD were larger in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Incision time and dissection time were significantly shorter in 3D ESD compared with 2D ESD, but eyestrain was increased. Depth information from 3D images appears to facilitate rapid and stable ESD maneuvers.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Conventional endoscopy provides two-dimensional (2D) information without depth information. This study compared three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy and 2D endoscopy using an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training model to evaluate the utility of 3D endoscopy. METHODS: Porcine stomach specimens (7 × 7 cm) were prepared from commercially available resected porcine stomachs and a 10-mm hypothetical lesion was marked at the center of each specimen. Specimens were individually placed in an ESD training model, and subjected to either 2D or 3D ESD. En bloc resection rate, perforation rate, incision time, dissection time, and levels of five eyestrain symptoms (fatigue, pain, blurred vision, head-heaviness, and headache; 100-mm visual analog scale) were compared between the 2D and 3D procedures. In a crossover design, 8 endoscopists each performed two 2D and two 3D procedures. RESULTS: All 32 lesions were resected en block, but perforation occurred in one 2D procedure. Incision time was significantly shorter in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD (102.8 ± 42.1 s vs. 135.8 ± 65.7 s, p < 0.05). Dissection time was also significantly shorter in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD (366.3 ± 187.6 s vs. 517.8 ± 282.3 s, p < 0.05). Differences in levels of all symptoms except blurred vision between before and after ESD were larger in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Incision time and dissection time were significantly shorter in 3D ESD compared with 2D ESD, but eyestrain was increased. Depth information from 3D images appears to facilitate rapid and stable ESD maneuvers.
Authors: B Alaraimi; W El Bakbak; S Sarker; S Makkiyah; A Al-Marzouq; R Goriparthi; A Bouhelal; V Quan; B Patel Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.352