Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Gynecological Surgery 2/2013

01-05-2013 | Original Article

3D laparoscopy: technique and initial experience in 451 cases

Authors: Rakesh Sinha, Meenakshi Sundaram, Shweta Raje, Gayatri Rao, Manju Sinha, Rushindra Sinha

Published in: Gynecological Surgery | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

This study aims to show that 3D technology in laparoscopy promises to be an indispensable tool. The feasibility and safety of this surgical innovation has been shown. Our objective is to evaluate our initial experience performing 3D laparoscopic surgeries and determine if there is any benefit with respect to the time of surgery, time of morcellation, complications, and blood loss. Study design includes prospective analysis of 451 cases of 3D laparoscopy between September 2011 and August 2012 for total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), and other advanced surgeries. The setting of the study is in a tertiary endoscopic referral center. Between September 2011 and August 2012, 451 laparoscopic surgeries were performed using 3D HD camera and Einstein Vision telescope (Schoelly-Fibreoptic GMBH, Germany) (Fig. 1). An analysis was done showing various indications; the average time taken for surgery and morcellation (whenever indicated), the average blood loss, and the learning curve were determined. 3D TLH was done in 200 cases and was compared to the 200 cases in which 2D was used previously. The weights of specimens were comparable in both groups. The duration of surgery in 3D was less than 60 min in 132 cases, while only 110 cases with 2D took less than 60 min. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.0316). Similarly, during laparoscopic myomectomy of 97 cases with 3D, 12 cases were done in less than 45 min, while only two cases were done in less than 45 min with the 2D system (p = 0.0101). This was statistically significant. The weights of specimens in both groups were comparable. The total blood loss during surgery with 2D and 3D was comparable and not statistically significant in both groups of TLH and LM. We had two conversions to conventional laparoscopy: one ureteric injury (patient with 2.1 kg uterus with anatomical distortion) and one relook after 12 h for hematoma evacuation. The largest uterus removed was 4.87 kg. 3D HD laparoscopy is a quantum leap in minimally invasive gynecology. The tactile feedback is retained; the precision, accuracy, and depth perception are remarkable. The learning curve is short (less than five cases). The initial investment and recurring cost are low compared to robotic-assisted laparoscopies. The time taken for surgery as well as morcellation is less than in 2D HD laparoscopy. The possibility of complications may be less also.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Yuen PM, Yu KM, Yip SK, Lau WC, Rogers MC, Chang A (1997) A randomized prospective study of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:109–114PubMedCrossRef Yuen PM, Yu KM, Yip SK, Lau WC, Rogers MC, Chang A (1997) A randomized prospective study of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:109–114PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Lo L, Pun TC, Chan S (1999) Tubal ectopic pregnancy: an evaluation of laparoscopic surgery versus laparotomy in 614 patients. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 39:185–187CrossRef Lo L, Pun TC, Chan S (1999) Tubal ectopic pregnancy: an evaluation of laparoscopic surgery versus laparotomy in 614 patients. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 39:185–187CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Diaz-Arrastia C, Jurnalov C, Gomez G, Townsend C Jr (2002) Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc 16:1271–1273PubMedCrossRef Diaz-Arrastia C, Jurnalov C, Gomez G, Townsend C Jr (2002) Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc 16:1271–1273PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150(1):92–96PubMedCrossRef Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150(1):92–96PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Lerihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Sestadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):589–594CrossRef Lerihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Sestadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):589–594CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Reich H, Roberts L (2003) Laparoscopic hysterectomy in current gynaecological practice. Rev Gynecol Pract 3:32–40CrossRef Reich H, Roberts L (2003) Laparoscopic hysterectomy in current gynaecological practice. Rev Gynecol Pract 3:32–40CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sinha R, Hegde A (2005) Safe entry techniques during laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12:463–465PubMedCrossRef Sinha R, Hegde A (2005) Safe entry techniques during laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12:463–465PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Patel HR, Ribal MJ, Arya M, Nauth-Misir R, Joseph JV (2007) Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three dimensional visualization? A validated assessment. Urology 70(1):47–49PubMedCrossRef Patel HR, Ribal MJ, Arya M, Nauth-Misir R, Joseph JV (2007) Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three dimensional visualization? A validated assessment. Urology 70(1):47–49PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastva A, Peabody J, Menon M (2004) Surgical robotics and laparoscopy drills. J Endourol 18:63–67PubMedCrossRef Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastva A, Peabody J, Menon M (2004) Surgical robotics and laparoscopy drills. J Endourol 18:63–67PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784PubMedCrossRef Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin W (2003) A prospective analysis on 211 robotic assisted surgical procedure. Surg Endosc 17:1521–1524PubMedCrossRef Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin W (2003) A prospective analysis on 211 robotic assisted surgical procedure. Surg Endosc 17:1521–1524PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Wexner SD, Bergamschi R, Lacy A et al (2009) The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multidisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc 23:438–443PubMedCrossRef Wexner SD, Bergamschi R, Lacy A et al (2009) The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multidisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc 23:438–443PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C. Comparing robotic-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcome. JMIG 17:730–738 Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C. Comparing robotic-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcome. JMIG 17:730–738
14.
go back to reference Lee YL, Kilic GS, Phelps JY (2011) Medico legal review of liability risks for gynecologists stemming from lack of training in robot assisted surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:512–515PubMedCrossRef Lee YL, Kilic GS, Phelps JY (2011) Medico legal review of liability risks for gynecologists stemming from lack of training in robot assisted surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:512–515PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Lee YL, Kilic G, Phelps JY (2012) Liability exposure for surgical robotics instructors. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:376–379PubMedCrossRef Lee YL, Kilic G, Phelps JY (2012) Liability exposure for surgical robotics instructors. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:376–379PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Nezhat et al (2009) Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertil Steril 91:2620–2622PubMedCrossRef Nezhat et al (2009) Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertil Steril 91:2620–2622PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Nezhat C, Watson J, Lemyre M, Hsu S, Barnett O, Lavie O (2009) Robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy—a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 91:556–559PubMedCrossRef Nezhat C, Watson J, Lemyre M, Hsu S, Barnett O, Lavie O (2009) Robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy—a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 91:556–559PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bush AJ, Morris SN, Millham FH, Isacson KB (2011) Women’s preferences for minimally invasive incisions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:640–643PubMedCrossRef Bush AJ, Morris SN, Millham FH, Isacson KB (2011) Women’s preferences for minimally invasive incisions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:640–643PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:291–301PubMedCrossRef Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:291–301PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
3D laparoscopy: technique and initial experience in 451 cases
Authors
Rakesh Sinha
Meenakshi Sundaram
Shweta Raje
Gayatri Rao
Manju Sinha
Rushindra Sinha
Publication date
01-05-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Gynecological Surgery / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 1613-2076
Electronic ISSN: 1613-2084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-013-0782-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

Gynecological Surgery 2/2013 Go to the issue