Peter Valentin Tomazic1, Fabian Sommer2, Hans Rudolf Briner3, Andreas Leunig4, Andreas Treccosti5. 1. Dept. of General Otorhinolaryngology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 26, 8036, Graz, Austria. peter.tomazic@medunigraz.at. 2. Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ulm University Medical Center, Frauensteige 12, 89075, Ulm, Germany. fabian.sommer@uniklinik-ulm.de. 3. Center for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Klinik Hirslanden, Witellikerstrasse 40, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Rhinology Center Munich, Platzl 3, 80331, Munich, Germany. 5. Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ulm University Medical Center, Frauensteige 12, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The current standard endoscopic technique is a high resolution visualisation up to Full HD and even 4 K. A recent development are 3D endoscopes providing a 3-dimensional picture, which supposedly gives additional information of depth, anatomical details and orientation in the surgical field. Since the 3D-endoscopic technique is new, little scientific evidence is known whether the new technique provides advantages for the surgeon compared to the 2D-endoscopic standard technique in FESS. This study compares the standard 2D-endoscopic surgical technique with the new commercially available 3D-endoscopic technique. METHODS: The prospective randomized interventional multicenter study included a total of 80 referred patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with and without polyps without prior surgery. A bilateral FESS procedure was performed, one side with the 2D-endoscopic technique, the other side with the 3D-endoscopic technique. The time of duration was measured. Additionally, a questionnaire containing 20 items was completed by 4 different surgeons judging subjective impression of visualisation and handling. RESULTS: 2D imaging was superior to 3D apart from "recognition of details", "depth perception" and "3D effect". For usability properties 2D was superior to 3D apart from "weight of endoscopes". Mean duration for surgery was 26.1 min for 2D and 27.4 min. for 3D without statistical significance (P = 0.219). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional endoscopy features improved depth perception and recognition of anatomic details but worse overall picture quality. It is useful for teaching purposes, yet 2D techniques provide a better outcome in terms of feasibility for routine endoscopic approaches.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The current standard endoscopic technique is a high resolution visualisation up to Full HD and even 4 K. A recent development are 3D endoscopes providing a 3-dimensional picture, which supposedly gives additional information of depth, anatomical details and orientation in the surgical field. Since the 3D-endoscopic technique is new, little scientific evidence is known whether the new technique provides advantages for the surgeon compared to the 2D-endoscopic standard technique in FESS. This study compares the standard 2D-endoscopic surgical technique with the new commercially available 3D-endoscopic technique. METHODS: The prospective randomized interventional multicenter study included a total of 80 referred patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with and without polyps without prior surgery. A bilateral FESS procedure was performed, one side with the 2D-endoscopic technique, the other side with the 3D-endoscopic technique. The time of duration was measured. Additionally, a questionnaire containing 20 items was completed by 4 different surgeons judging subjective impression of visualisation and handling. RESULTS: 2D imaging was superior to 3D apart from "recognition of details", "depth perception" and "3D effect". For usability properties 2D was superior to 3D apart from "weight of endoscopes". Mean duration for surgery was 26.1 min for 2D and 27.4 min. for 3D without statistical significance (P = 0.219). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional endoscopy features improved depth perception and recognition of anatomic details but worse overall picture quality. It is useful for teaching purposes, yet 2D techniques provide a better outcome in terms of feasibility for routine endoscopic approaches.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anatomy; Feasibility; Functional endoscopic sinus surgery; Imaging; Standard endoscopy
Authors: Valerie J Lund; Heinz Stammberger; Piero Nicolai; Paolo Castelnuovo; Tim Beal; Alfred Beham; Manuel Bernal-Sprekelsen; Hannes Braun; Paola Cappabianca; Ricardo Carrau; Luigi Cavallo; George Clarici; Wolfwang Draf; Felice Esposito; Juan Fernandez-Miranda; Wytske Fokkens; Paul Gardner; Verena Gellner; Henrik Hellquist; Phillipe Hermann; Werner Hosemann; David Howard; Nick Jones; Mark Jorissen; Amin Kassam; Daniel Kelly; Senta Kurschel-Lackner; Samuel Leong; Nancy McLaughlin; Roberto Maroldi; Amir Minovi; Michael Mokry; Metin Onerci; Yew Kwang Ong; Daniel Prevedello; Hesham Saleh; Dharambir S Sehti; Daniel Simmen; Carl Snyderman; Auturo Solares; Magaret Spittle; Aldo Stamm; Peter Tomazic; Matteo Trimarchi; Frank Unger; Peter-John Wormald; Adam Zanation Journal: Rhinol Suppl Date: 2010-06-01
Authors: Paolo Bailo; Filippo Gibelli; Alberto Blandino; Andrea Piccinini; Giovanna Ricci; Ascanio Sirignano; Riccardo Zoja Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 3.390