Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 4/2020

Open Access 01-04-2020 | Laparoscopy

3D laparoscopy does not reduce operative duration or errors in day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial

Authors: Katie E. Schwab, Nathan J. Curtis, Martin B. Whyte, Ralph V. Smith, Timothy A. Rockall, Karen Ballard, Iain C. Jourdan

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 4/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Contemporary 3D platforms have overcome past deficiencies. Available trainee and laboratory studies suggest stereoscopic imaging improves performance but there is little clinical data or studies assessing specialists. We aimed to determine whether stereoscopic (3D) laparoscopic systems reduce operative time and number of intraoperative errors during specialist-performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

A parallel arm (1:1) randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D passive-polarised laparoscopic systems in day-case LC using was performed. Eleven consultant surgeons that had each performed > 200 LC (including > 10 3D LC) participated. Cases were video recorded and a four-point difficulty grade applied. The primary outcome was overall operative time. Subtask time and the number of intraoperative consequential errors as identified by two blinded assessors using a hierarchical task analysis and the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique formed secondary endpoints.

Results

112 patients were randomised. There was no difference in operative time between 2D and 3D LC (23:14 min (± 10:52) vs. 20:17 (± 9:10), absolute difference − 14.6%, p = 0.148) although 3D surgery was significantly quicker in difficulty grade 3 and 4 cases (30:23 min (± 9:24), vs. 18:02 (± 7:56), p < 0.001). No differences in overall error count was seen (total 47, median 1, range 0–4 vs. 45, 1, 0–3, p = 0.62) although there were significantly fewer 3D gallbladder perforations (15 vs. 6, p = 0.034).

Conclusion

3D laparoscopy did not reduce overall operative time or error frequency in laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed by specialist surgeons. 3D reduced Calot’s dissection time and operative time in complex cases as well as the incidence of iatrogenic gallbladder perforation (NCT01930344).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schwab K, Smith R, Brown V, Whyte M, Jourdan I (2017) Evolution of stereoscopic imaging in surgery and recent advances. World J Gastrointest Endosc 9(8):368–377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schwab K, Smith R, Brown V, Whyte M, Jourdan I (2017) Evolution of stereoscopic imaging in surgery and recent advances. World J Gastrointest Endosc 9(8):368–377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Vettoretto N, Foglia E, Ferrario L, Arezzo A, Cirocchi R, Cocorullo G et al (2018) Why laparoscopists may opt for three-dimensional view: a summary of the full HTA report on 3D versus 2D laparoscopy by S.I.C.E. (Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie). Surg Endosc 32(6):2986–2993CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Vettoretto N, Foglia E, Ferrario L, Arezzo A, Cirocchi R, Cocorullo G et al (2018) Why laparoscopists may opt for three-dimensional view: a summary of the full HTA report on 3D versus 2D laparoscopy by S.I.C.E. (Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie). Surg Endosc 32(6):2986–2993CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Sorensen SM, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(1):11–23CrossRefPubMed Sorensen SM, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(1):11–23CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Cheng J, Gao J, Shuai X, Wang G, Tao K (2016) Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 7(43):70979–70990PubMedPubMedCentral Cheng J, Gao J, Shuai X, Wang G, Tao K (2016) Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 7(43):70979–70990PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Sakata S, Watson MO, Grove PM, Stevenson AR (2016) The conflicting evidence of three-dimensional displays in laparoscopy: a review of systems old and new. Ann Surg 263(2):234–239CrossRefPubMed Sakata S, Watson MO, Grove PM, Stevenson AR (2016) The conflicting evidence of three-dimensional displays in laparoscopy: a review of systems old and new. Ann Surg 263(2):234–239CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Smith R, Schwab K, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M et al (2014) Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg 101(11):1453–1459CrossRefPubMed Smith R, Schwab K, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M et al (2014) Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg 101(11):1453–1459CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Wilhelm D, Reiser S, Kohn N, Witte M, Leiner U, Muhlbach L et al (2014) Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: even well-experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D. Surg Endosc 28(8):2387–2397CrossRefPubMed Wilhelm D, Reiser S, Kohn N, Witte M, Leiner U, Muhlbach L et al (2014) Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: even well-experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D. Surg Endosc 28(8):2387–2397CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374(9695):1105–1112CrossRefPubMed McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374(9695):1105–1112CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by observational clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 139(11):1215–1220CrossRefPubMed Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by observational clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 139(11):1215–1220CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Foster JD, Miskovic D, Allison AS, Conti JA, Ockrim J, Cooper EJ et al (2016) Application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol 20(6):361–367CrossRefPubMed Foster JD, Miskovic D, Allison AS, Conti JA, Ockrim J, Cooper EJ et al (2016) Application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol 20(6):361–367CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM, Parvaiz A, Hanna GB (2012) Observational clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) for competency assessment in laparoscopic colorectal surgery at the specialist level. Surg Endosc 26(3):796–803CrossRefPubMed Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM, Parvaiz A, Hanna GB (2012) Observational clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) for competency assessment in laparoscopic colorectal surgery at the specialist level. Surg Endosc 26(3):796–803CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery—a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29(6):409–414CrossRefPubMed Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery—a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29(6):409–414CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Tang B, Hanna GB, Bax NM, Cuschieri A (2004) Analysis of technical surgical errors during initial experience of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy by a group of Dutch pediatric surgeons. Surg Endosc 18(12):1716–1720CrossRefPubMed Tang B, Hanna GB, Bax NM, Cuschieri A (2004) Analysis of technical surgical errors during initial experience of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy by a group of Dutch pediatric surgeons. Surg Endosc 18(12):1716–1720CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference van Rutte P, Nienhuijs SW, Jakimowicz JJ, van Montfort G (2017) Identification of technical errors and hazard zones in sleeve gastrectomy using OCHRA: “OCHRA for sleeve gastrectomy”. Surg Endosc 31(2):561–566CrossRefPubMed van Rutte P, Nienhuijs SW, Jakimowicz JJ, van Montfort G (2017) Identification of technical errors and hazard zones in sleeve gastrectomy using OCHRA: “OCHRA for sleeve gastrectomy”. Surg Endosc 31(2):561–566CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Talebpour M, Alijani A, Hanna GB, Moosa Z, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2009) Proficiency-gain curve for an advanced laparoscopic procedure defined by observation clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA). Surg Endosc 23(4):869–875CrossRefPubMed Talebpour M, Alijani A, Hanna GB, Moosa Z, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2009) Proficiency-gain curve for an advanced laparoscopic procedure defined by observation clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA). Surg Endosc 23(4):869–875CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Mishra A, Catchpole K, Dale T, McCulloch P (2008) The influence of non-technical performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22(1):68–73CrossRefPubMed Mishra A, Catchpole K, Dale T, McCulloch P (2008) The influence of non-technical performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22(1):68–73CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Pisanu A, Reccia I, Porceddu G, Uccheddu A (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16(9):1790–1801CrossRefPubMed Pisanu A, Reccia I, Porceddu G, Uccheddu A (2012) Meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CMLC). J Gastrointest Surg 16(9):1790–1801CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Eijkemans MJ, van Houdenhoven M, Nguyen T, Boersma E, Steyerberg EW, Kazemier G (2010) Predicting the unpredictable: a new prediction model for operating room times using individual characteristics and the surgeon’s estimate. Anesthesiology 112(1):41–49CrossRefPubMed Eijkemans MJ, van Houdenhoven M, Nguyen T, Boersma E, Steyerberg EW, Kazemier G (2010) Predicting the unpredictable: a new prediction model for operating room times using individual characteristics and the surgeon’s estimate. Anesthesiology 112(1):41–49CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Griffiths EA, Hodson J, Vohra RS, Marriott P, Katbeh T, Zino S et al (2019) Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 33(1):110–121CrossRefPubMed Griffiths EA, Hodson J, Vohra RS, Marriott P, Katbeh T, Zino S et al (2019) Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 33(1):110–121CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Gurusamy KS, Sahay S, Davidson BR (2011) Three dimensional versus two dimensional imaging for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011(1):CD006882 Gurusamy KS, Sahay S, Davidson BR (2011) Three dimensional versus two dimensional imaging for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011(1):CD006882
24.
go back to reference Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 351(9098):248–251CrossRefPubMed Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 351(9098):248–251CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Brockmann JG, Kocher T, Senninger NJ, Schurmann GM (2002) Complications due to gallstones lost during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16(8):1226–1232CrossRefPubMed Brockmann JG, Kocher T, Senninger NJ, Schurmann GM (2002) Complications due to gallstones lost during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16(8):1226–1232CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(16):1569–1580CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(16):1569–1580CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Criss CN, MacEachern MP, Matusko N, Dimick JB, Maggard-Gibbons M, Gadepalli SK (2019) The impact of corporate payments on robotic surgery research: a systematic review. Ann Surg 269(3):389–396CrossRefPubMed Criss CN, MacEachern MP, Matusko N, Dimick JB, Maggard-Gibbons M, Gadepalli SK (2019) The impact of corporate payments on robotic surgery research: a systematic review. Ann Surg 269(3):389–396CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Cornish J, Harries RL, Bosanquet D, Rees B, Ansell J, Frewer N et al (2016) Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART)—abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 17(1):454CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cornish J, Harries RL, Bosanquet D, Rees B, Ansell J, Frewer N et al (2016) Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART)—abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 17(1):454CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference CholeS Study Group WMRC (2016) Population-based cohort study of outcomes following cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases. Br J Surg 103(12):1704–1715CrossRef CholeS Study Group WMRC (2016) Population-based cohort study of outcomes following cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases. Br J Surg 103(12):1704–1715CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Gjeraa K, Spanager L, Konge L, Petersen RH, Ostergaard D (2016) Non-technical skills in minimally invasive surgery teams: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(12):5185–5199CrossRefPubMed Gjeraa K, Spanager L, Konge L, Petersen RH, Ostergaard D (2016) Non-technical skills in minimally invasive surgery teams: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(12):5185–5199CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Cuschieri GB, Hanna NK, Francis A (2001) Psychomotor ability testing and human reliability analysis (HRA) in surgical practice. Minim Invasive Therapy Allied Technol 10(3):181–195CrossRef Cuschieri GB, Hanna NK, Francis A (2001) Psychomotor ability testing and human reliability analysis (HRA) in surgical practice. Minim Invasive Therapy Allied Technol 10(3):181–195CrossRef
Metadata
Title
3D laparoscopy does not reduce operative duration or errors in day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial
Authors
Katie E. Schwab
Nathan J. Curtis
Martin B. Whyte
Ralph V. Smith
Timothy A. Rockall
Karen Ballard
Iain C. Jourdan
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06961-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 4/2020 Go to the issue