Zheng Wang1, Jianwei Liang1, Jianan Chen1, Shiwen Mei1, Qian Liu1. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visual information is crucial for performing laparoscopic surgery. While surgeons lose depth perception and spatial orientation in conventional 2D laparoscopy, the 4th generation 3D system gives a better depth perception. OBJECTIVE: In this sstudy, we aimed to investigate the feasibility, safety, and short-term efficacy of 4th generation 3D-HD visualization technology applied in laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. METHODS:One hundred and twenty patients with colon adenocarcinoma were recruited in this study. Patients were randomized on the day of surgery by a random computer-generated allocation list to undergo either a 3D-HD display or 2D-HD imaging system laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. In total, 60 patients underwentlaparoscopic colon resection by 3D-HD laparoscope (3D group) and 60 patients underwent 2D-HD laparoscope (2D group). After the insertion of the access ports, both surgical procedures were divided in component tasks, and the execution times were compared. Data analysis was done using SPSS (version 15.0). Quantitative and qualitative variables were compared applying Student t test and Pearson's chi-square test. RESULTS: Two groups were homogenous in terms of demographic data. Operation time was significantly shorter for the 3D group than for the 2D group (123.2±34.2 min vs. 142.2±23.5 min, P=0.018). There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, the number of retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The 4th generation 3D-HD vision system reduced the operating time compared to 2D-HD vision system. It seems that use of the 3D-HD technology can significantly enhance the possibility of achieving better intraoperative results. <br />.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Visual information is crucial for performing laparoscopic surgery. While surgeons lose depth perception and spatial orientation in conventional 2D laparoscopy, the 4th generation 3D system gives a better depth perception. OBJECTIVE: In this sstudy, we aimed to investigate the feasibility, safety, and short-term efficacy of 4th generation 3D-HD visualization technology applied in laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients with colon adenocarcinoma were recruited in this study. Patients were randomized on the day of surgery by a random computer-generated allocation list to undergo either a 3D-HD display or 2D-HD imaging system laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. In total, 60 patients underwent laparoscopic colon resection by 3D-HD laparoscope (3D group) and 60 patients underwent 2D-HD laparoscope (2D group). After the insertion of the access ports, both surgical procedures were divided in component tasks, and the execution times were compared. Data analysis was done using SPSS (version 15.0). Quantitative and qualitative variables were compared applying Student t test and Pearson's chi-square test. RESULTS: Two groups were homogenous in terms of demographic data. Operation time was significantly shorter for the 3D group than for the 2D group (123.2±34.2 min vs. 142.2±23.5 min, P=0.018). There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, the number of retrieved lymph nodes, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The 4th generation 3D-HD vision system reduced the operating time compared to 2D-HD vision system. It seems that use of the 3D-HD technology can significantly enhance the possibility of achieving better intraoperative results. <br />.
Authors: Antonio Cicione; Riccardo Autorino; Alberto Breda; Marco De Sio; Rocco Damiano; Ferdinando Fusco; Francesco Greco; Emanuel Carvalho-Dias; Paulo Mota; Cristina Nogueira; Pedro Pinho; Vincenzo Mirone; Jeorge Correia-Pinto; Jens Rassweiler; Estevao Lima Journal: Urology Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Achim Lusch; Philip L Bucur; Ashleigh D Menhadji; Zhamshid Okhunov; Michael Andre Liss; Alberto Perez-Lanzac; Elspeth M McDougall; Jaime Landman Journal: J Endourol Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 2.942