Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 3/2020

01-03-2020 | Laparoscopy

Two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for vaginal cuff closure by surgeons-in-training: a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Mobolaji O. Ajao, Christian R. Larsen, Elmira Manoucheri, Emily R. Goggins, Maja T. Rask, Mary K. B. Cox, Avery Mushinski, Xiangmei Gu, Sarah L. Cohen, Martin Rudnicki, Jon I. Einarsson

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Objective evidence is lacking as to the benefit of the addition of 3D vision to conventional laparoscopy in Gynecologic surgery. This study aims to compare 3-D visual system to traditional 2-D laparoscopic visualization for the laparoscopic closure of the vaginal cuff during total laparoscopic hysterectomy by surgeons-in-training [defined as senior OBGYN resident or Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (MIGS) fellow].

Methods

51 patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy at two tertiary care academic hospitals were randomized to two-dimensional or three-dimensional vision system with cuff closure performed by surgeons-in-training. The primary outcome was the time taken for vaginal cuff closure. Secondary outcomes included peri-operative outcomes and assessment of surgeon’s perception of ease of cuff closure.

Results

27 (52.9%) cases were allocated to cuff closure with the 2D system and 24 (47.1%) cases to closure with the 3D vision system. Patient baseline characteristics were similar between the vision systems. Mean vaginal cuff closure time was not significantly different between 2D and 3D vision (10.1 min for 2D versus 12 min for 3D, p = 0.31). An additional 24 s was added to cuff closure time with each 1 kg/m2 increase in BMI, after controlling for potential confounders (p = 0.003). There was no difference in the surgeon rating of ease of cuff closure between 2D and 3D. Peri-operative outcomes are similar among the two groups.

Conclusion

We did not demonstrate any benefits of 3D vision system over conventional 2D for the task of laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing performed by surgeons-in-training.
RCT Registration Number NCT02192606 https://​clinicaltrials.​gov/​ct2/​show/​NCT02192606 (July 17, 2014)
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW et al (2015) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD003677 Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW et al (2015) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD003677
2.
go back to reference Walsh CA, Walsh SR, Tang TY, Slack M (2009) Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(1):3–7CrossRef Walsh CA, Walsh SR, Tang TY, Slack M (2009) Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(1):3–7CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Siedhoff MT, Wheeler SB, Rutstein SE, Geller EJ, Doll KM, Wu JM et al (2015) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation vs abdominal hysterectomy for presumed fibroid tumors in premenopausal women: a decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(5):591.e1–8PubMed Siedhoff MT, Wheeler SB, Rutstein SE, Geller EJ, Doll KM, Wu JM et al (2015) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation vs abdominal hysterectomy for presumed fibroid tumors in premenopausal women: a decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(5):591.e1–8PubMed
4.
go back to reference Fuchs Weizman N, Maurer R, Einarsson JI, Vitonis AF, Cohen SL (2015) Survey on barriers to adoption of laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Educ. 72(5):985–994CrossRef Fuchs Weizman N, Maurer R, Einarsson JI, Vitonis AF, Cohen SL (2015) Survey on barriers to adoption of laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Educ. 72(5):985–994CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rodrigues SP, Horeman T, Blomjous MS, Hiemstra E, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Jansen FW (2016) Laparoscopic suturing learning curve in an open versus closed box trainer. Surg Endosc 30(1):315–322CrossRef Rodrigues SP, Horeman T, Blomjous MS, Hiemstra E, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Jansen FW (2016) Laparoscopic suturing learning curve in an open versus closed box trainer. Surg Endosc 30(1):315–322CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA Jr, Morgan DM (2016) Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(5):650.e1–e8CrossRef Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA Jr, Morgan DM (2016) Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(5):650.e1–e8CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 122(4):778–786CrossRef Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 122(4):778–786CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309(7):689–698CrossRef Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309(7):689–698CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Wright JD, Ananth CV, Tergas AI, Herzog TJ, Burke WM, Lewin SN et al (2014) An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 123(5):1038–1048CrossRef Wright JD, Ananth CV, Tergas AI, Herzog TJ, Burke WM, Lewin SN et al (2014) An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 123(5):1038–1048CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Surgical I. Intuitive Surgical Investor Presentation Q3 2017.pdf. 2017 Surgical I. Intuitive Surgical Investor Presentation Q3 2017.pdf. 2017
11.
go back to reference Kinoshita H, Nakagawa K, Usui Y, Iwamura M, Ito A, Miyajima A et al (2015) High-definition resolution three-dimensional imaging systems in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: randomized comparative study with high-definition resolution two-dimensional systems. Surg Endosc 29(8):2203–2209CrossRef Kinoshita H, Nakagawa K, Usui Y, Iwamura M, Ito A, Miyajima A et al (2015) High-definition resolution three-dimensional imaging systems in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: randomized comparative study with high-definition resolution two-dimensional systems. Surg Endosc 29(8):2203–2209CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD, Okhunov Z, Liss MA, Perez-Lanzac A et al (2014) Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol 28(2):261–266CrossRef Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD, Okhunov Z, Liss MA, Perez-Lanzac A et al (2014) Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol 28(2):261–266CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ozsoy M, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, Panagopoulos V, Vasilas M, Sakellaropoulos GC et al (2015) Novice surgeons: do they benefit from 3D laparoscopy? Lasers Med Sci 30(4):1325–1333CrossRef Ozsoy M, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, Panagopoulos V, Vasilas M, Sakellaropoulos GC et al (2015) Novice surgeons: do they benefit from 3D laparoscopy? Lasers Med Sci 30(4):1325–1333CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Smith R, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M, Jourdan I (2012) Advanced stereoscopic projection technology significantly improves novice performance of minimally invasive surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26(6):1522–1527CrossRef Smith R, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M, Jourdan I (2012) Advanced stereoscopic projection technology significantly improves novice performance of minimally invasive surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26(6):1522–1527CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Usta TA, Karacan T, Naki MM, Calik A, Turkgeldi L, Kasimogullari V (2014) Comparison of 3-dimensional versus 2-dimensional laparoscopic vision system in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a retrospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290(4):705–709CrossRef Usta TA, Karacan T, Naki MM, Calik A, Turkgeldi L, Kasimogullari V (2014) Comparison of 3-dimensional versus 2-dimensional laparoscopic vision system in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a retrospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290(4):705–709CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Usta TA, Ozkaynak A, Kovalak E, Ergul E, Naki MM, Kaya E (2015) An assessment of the new generation three-dimensional high definition laparoscopic vision system on surgical skills: a randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc 29(8):2305–2313CrossRef Usta TA, Ozkaynak A, Kovalak E, Ergul E, Naki MM, Kaya E (2015) An assessment of the new generation three-dimensional high definition laparoscopic vision system on surgical skills: a randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc 29(8):2305–2313CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Ko JK, Li RH, Cheung VY (2015) Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy: evaluation of physicians’ performance and preference using a pelvic trainer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 22(3):421–427CrossRef Ko JK, Li RH, Cheung VY (2015) Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy: evaluation of physicians’ performance and preference using a pelvic trainer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 22(3):421–427CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Herron DM, Lantis JC 2nd, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg SD (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display. A quantitative evaluation of advanced laparoscopic viewing technologies. Surg Endosc 13(8):751–755CrossRef Herron DM, Lantis JC 2nd, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg SD (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display. A quantitative evaluation of advanced laparoscopic viewing technologies. Surg Endosc 13(8):751–755CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Einarsson JI, Cohen SL, Gobern JM, Sandberg EM, Hill-Lydecker CI, Wang K et al (2013) Barbed versus standard suture: a randomized trial for laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 20(4):492–498CrossRef Einarsson JI, Cohen SL, Gobern JM, Sandberg EM, Hill-Lydecker CI, Wang K et al (2013) Barbed versus standard suture: a randomized trial for laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 20(4):492–498CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI (2012) Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS. 16(4):519–524CrossRef Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI (2012) Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS. 16(4):519–524CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for vaginal cuff closure by surgeons-in-training: a randomized controlled trial
Authors
Mobolaji O. Ajao
Christian R. Larsen
Elmira Manoucheri
Emily R. Goggins
Maja T. Rask
Mary K. B. Cox
Avery Mushinski
Xiangmei Gu
Sarah L. Cohen
Martin Rudnicki
Jon I. Einarsson
Publication date
01-03-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06886-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 3/2020 Go to the issue