Literature DB >> 33437270

Short term outcomes of three dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Abdul Razaque Shaikh1, Aijaz Ahmed Shaikh2, Mujib Abbasi3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term outcomes of three dimensional (3D) versus two dimensional (2D) laparoscopic procedures used for cholecystectomy.
METHODS: This study was conducted at minimally invasive surgery center of Liaquat University of Medical Health and Sciences (LUMHS) Jamshoro Pakistan, between 15th May 2017 to 16th December 2017 after taking informed consent. All patients were diagnosed cases of cholelithiasis without any complications. Patients having risk factors for inability to get access to gall bladder via laparoscope and in whom the chances of conversion to open cholecystectomy were greater were not included as part of study. One group of patients underwent cholecystectomy under 3D laparoscopy while other group underwent 2D laparoscopy. Surgeons included in the study were all well-trained. The short-term outcome noted were intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion to open, operative time, mortality and hospital stay. Visual strain and headache for the surgeon in three D laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
RESULTS: A total of one hundred forty patients were included in the study. Group-A consists of sixty two females and eleven males whereas Group-B comprised of fifty eight females and fifteen males. Eight percent of patients in Group-A whereas in Group-B two percent had gallbladder rupture. Fifteen percent of patients in Group-A whereas 5.4% from Group-B had bleeding from liver bed. One patient from Group-A had CBD (Common Bile Duct) injury. Post-operatively two (2.73%) patients from Group-A had port site bleeding. Six (8.21%) patients had port site infection in Group-A.
CONCLUSION: Three dimensional was found to have low incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications compared to 2D laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Copyright: © Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy; Three Dimensional; Two Dimensional

Year:  2021        PMID: 33437270      PMCID: PMC7794142          DOI: 10.12669/pjms.37.1.3721

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pak J Med Sci        ISSN: 1681-715X            Impact factor:   1.088


  15 in total

1.  The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018.

Authors:  Alberto Arezzo; Nereo Vettoretto; Nader K Francis; Marco Augusto Bonino; Nathan J Curtis; Daniele Amparore; Simone Arolfo; Manuel Barberio; Luigi Boni; Ronit Brodie; Nicole Bouvy; Elisa Cassinotti; Thomas Carus; Enrico Checcucci; Petra Custers; Michele Diana; Marilou Jansen; Joris Jaspers; Gadi Marom; Kota Momose; Beat P Müller-Stich; Kyokazu Nakajima; Felix Nickel; Silvana Perretta; Francesco Porpiglia; Francisco Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Marlies Schijven; Gianfranco Silecchia; Roberto Passera; Yoav Mintz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Charlotte Fergo; Jakob Burcharth; Hans-Christian Pommergaard; Niels Kildebro; Jacob Rosenberg
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 2.565

3.  Feasibility of robotic surgery in a developing country, a public sector Perspective.

Authors:  Shahriyar Ghazanfar; Sajida Qureshi; Muhammad Zubair; Umer Fateh; Saif Ahmed; Mohammad Saeed Quraishy
Journal:  J Pak Med Assoc       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 0.781

4.  Three-dimensional laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; Francesco Volonte; François Pugin; Christian Toso; Philippe Morel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Comparison of 3D imaging and 2D imaging for performance time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Köksal Bilgen; Murat Ustün; Murat Karakahya; Sevil Işik; Serkan Sengül; Süleyman Cetinkünar; Tevfik H Küçükpinar
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.719

6.  Three-Dimensional Versus Two-Dimensional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Is Surgeon Experience Relevant?

Authors:  Giuseppe Currò; Giuseppe La Malfa; Salvatore Lazzara; Antonio Caizzone; Anna Fortugno; Giuseppe Navarra
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 1.878

7.  [Comparative study of 3D thoracoscopic esophagectomy versus 2D thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma].

Authors:  Yulong Hou; Wei Guo; Zhijian Yang; Jianqiang Zhao
Journal:  Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2015-09

Review 8.  Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ji Cheng; Jinbo Gao; Xiaoming Shuai; Guobin Wang; Kaixiong Tao
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-10-25

9.  Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Hanna Koppatz; Jukka Harju; Jukka Sirén; Panu Mentula; Tom Scheinin; Ville Sallinen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Is 3D faster and safer than 4K laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised-controlled trial.

Authors:  Matt Dunstan; Ralph Smith; Katie Schwab; Andrea Scala; Piers Gatenby; Martin Whyte; Tim Rockall; Iain Jourdan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  1 in total

1.  Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience.

Authors:  Myltykbay Rysmakhanov; Asset Yelemessov; Nadiar Mussin; Daulet Yessenbayev; Samat Saparbayev; Bazylbek Zhakiyev; Yerlan Sultangereyev
Journal:  Korean J Transplant       Date:  2022-06-13
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.