Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 1/2016

01-01-2016 | Review

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review

Authors: Stine Maya Dreier Sørensen, Mona Meral Savran, Lars Konge, Flemming Bjerrum

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is widely used, and results in accelerated patient recovery time and hospital stay were compared with laparotomy. However, laparoscopic surgery is more challenging compared with open surgery, in part because surgeons must operate in a three-dimensional (3D) space through a two-dimensional (2D) projection on a monitor, which results in loss of depth perception. To counter this problem, 3D imaging for laparoscopy was developed. A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the effect of 3D laparoscopy.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that compared 3D with 2D laparoscopy. The search was accomplished in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library electronic databases. No language or year of publication restrictions was applied. Data extracted were cohort size and characteristics, skill trained or operation performed, instrument used, outcome measures, and conclusions. Two independent authors performed the search and data extraction.

Results

Three hundred and forty articles were screened for eligibility, and 31 RCTs were included in the review. Three trials were carried out in a clinical setting, and 28 trials used a simulated setting. Time was used as an outcome measure in all of the trials, and number of errors was used in 19 out of 31 trials. Twenty-two out of 31 trials (71 %) showed a reduction in performance time, and 12 out of 19 (63 %) showed a significant reduction in error when using 3D compared to 2D.

Conclusions

Overall, 3D laparoscopy appears to improve speed and reduce the number of performance errors when compared to 2D laparoscopy. Most studies to date assessed 3D laparoscopy in simulated settings, and the impact of 3D laparoscopy on clinical outcomes has yet to be examined.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Buchs NC, Morel P (2013) Three-dimensional laparoscopy: a new tool in the surgeon’s armamentarium. Surg Technol Int 23:19–22PubMed
2.
Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, Horgan S, Candinas D, Vorburger SA (2012) Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 26(10):2961–2968PubMedCrossRef
3.
Medeiros LR, Stein AT, Fachel J, Garry R, Furness S (2008) Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18(3):387–399PubMedCrossRef
4.
Sahu D, Mathew MJ, Reddy PK (2014) 3D Laparoscopy—help or hype; initial experience of a tertiary health centre. J Clin Diagn Res 8(7):NC01–NC03PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Taffinder N, Smith SG, Huber J, Russell RC, Darzi A (1999) The effect of a second-generation 3D endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 13(11):1087–1092PubMedCrossRef
6.
Wilhelm D, Reiser S, Kohn N, Witte M, Leiner U, Mühlbach L, Ruschin D, Reiner W, Feussner H (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):2387–2397PubMedCrossRef
7.
Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD, Okhunov Z, Liss MA, Perez-Lanzac A, McDougall EM, Landman J (2014) Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol 28(2):261–266PubMedCrossRef
8.
Kong SH, Oh BM, Yoon H, Ahn HS, Lee HJ, Chung SG, Shiraishi N, Kitano S, Yang HK (2010) Comparison of two- and three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic performance: a novel 3D system with one camera. Surg Endosc 24(5):1132–1143PubMedCrossRef
9.
Smith R, Schwab K, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M, Jourdan I (2014) Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg 101(11):1453–1459PubMedCrossRef
10.
Falk V, Mintz D, Grünenfelder J, Fann JI, Burdon TA (2001) Influence of three-dimensional vision on surgical telemanipulator performance. Surg Endosc 15(11):1282–1288PubMedCrossRef
11.
Kihara K, Fujii Y, Masuda H, Saito K, Koga F, Matsuoka Y, Numao N, Kojima K (2012) New three-dimensional head-mounted display system, TMDU-S-3D system, for minimally invasive surgery application: procedures for gasless single-port radical nephrectomy. Int J Urol 19(9):886–889PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zdichavsky M, Schmidt A, Luithle T, Manncke S, Fuchs J (2014) Three-dimensional laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in children and adults: a prospective clinical trial. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. doi:10.​3109/​13645706.​2014.​968171
13.
Kunert W, Storz P, Kirschniak A (2013) For 3D laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation: how to get maximum benefit from 3D vision. Surg Endosc 27(2):696–699PubMedCrossRef
14.
Cicione A, Autorino R, Breda A, Sio MD, Damiano R, Fusco F, Greco F, Carvalho-Dias E, Mota P, Nogueira C, Pinho P, Mirone V, Correia-Pinto J, Rassweiler J, Lima E (2013) Three-dimensional vs standard laparoscopy: comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology 82(6):1444–1450PubMedCrossRef
15.
Alaraimi B, Bakbak W, Sarker S, Makkiyah S, Al-Marzouq A, Goriparthi R, Bouhelal A, Quan V, Patel B (2014) A randomized prospective study comparing acquisition of laparoscopic skills in three-dimensional (3D) vs. two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy. World J Surg 38(11):2746–2752PubMedCrossRef
16.
Gurusamy KS, Sahay S, Davidson BR (2011) Three dimensional versus two dimensional imaging for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19(1):CD006882
17.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341PubMedCrossRef
18.
Mistry M, Roach VA, Wilson TD (2013) Application of stereoscopic visualization on surgical skill acquisition in novices. J Surg Educ 70(5):563–570PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
LaGrange CA, Clark CJ, Gerber EW, Strup SE (2008) Evaluation of three laparoscopic modalities: robotics versus three-dimensional vision laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy. J Endourol 22(3):511–516PubMedCrossRef
21.
Sun CC, Chiu AW, Chen KK, Chang LS (2000) Assessment of a three-dimensional operating system with skill tests in a pelvic trainer. Urol Int 64(3):154–158PubMedCrossRef
22.
Mueller M, Camartin C, Dreher E, Hänggi W (1999) Three-dimensional laparoscopy. Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 13(5):469–472PubMedCrossRef
23.
Herron DM, Lantis JC, 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):751–755PubMedCrossRef
24.
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):248–251PubMedCrossRef
25.
Chan AC, Chung SC, Yim AP, Lau JY, Ng EK, Li AK (1997) Comparison of two-dimensional vs three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 11(5):438–440PubMedCrossRef
26.
Jones DB, Brewer JD, Soper NJ (1996) The influence of three-dimensional video systems on laparoscopic task performance. Surg Laparosc Endosc 6(3):191–197PubMedCrossRef
27.
Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG, Madison KM, Sandhu GS, Varela JE, Benway BM (2012) 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(9):865–870PubMedCrossRef
28.
Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A (2012) 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 26(5):1454–1460PubMedCrossRef
29.
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):1522–1527PubMedCrossRef
30.
Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Rassweiler J, Knoll T (2012) Three-dimensional laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex vivo laparoscopic tasks. J Endourol 26(8):1085–1088PubMedCrossRef
31.
Patel HR, Ribal M, Arya M, Nauth-Misir R, Joseph JV (2007) Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three-dimensional visualization? A validated assessment. Urology 70(1):47–49PubMedCrossRef
32.
Blavier A, Gaudissart Q, Cadière G, Nyssen A (2007) Comparison of learning curves and skill transfer between classical and robotic laparoscopy according to the viewing conditions: implications for training. Am J Surg 194(1):115–121PubMedCrossRef
33.
Peitgen K, Walz M, Holtmann G (1996) A prospective randomized experimental evaluation of three-dimensional imaging in laparoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 44(3):262–267PubMedCrossRef
34.
Votanopoulos K, Brunicardi F, Thornby J (2008) Impact of three-dimensional vision in laparoscopic training. World J Surg 32(1):110–118PubMedCrossRef
35.
Silvestri M, Simi M, Cavallotti C, Vatteroni M, Ferrari V, Freschi C, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Dario P (2011) Autostereoscopic three-dimensional viewer evaluation through comparison with conventional interfaces in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 18(3):223–230PubMedCrossRef
36.
Bittner JG, Hathaway CA, Brown JA (2008) Three-dimensional visualisation and articulating instrumentation: impact on simulated laparoscopic tasks. J Minim Acces Surg 4(2):31–38CrossRef
37.
Tevaearai HT, Mueller XM, Segesser LK (2000) 3-D vision improves performance in a pelvic trainer. Endoscopy 32(6):464–468PubMedCrossRef
38.
Kaufman Y, Sharon A, Klein O, Spiegel D (2007) The three-dimensional “insect eye” laparoscopic imaging system-a prospective randomized study. Gynecol Surg 4(1):31–34CrossRef
39.
Bhayani GL, Bhayani SB, Andriole GL (2005) Three-dimensional (3D) vision: Does it improve laparoscopic skills? An assessment of a 3D head-mounted visualization system. Rev Urol 7(4):211–214PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Feng C, Rozenblit JW, Hamilton AJ (2010) A computerized assessment to compare the impact of standard, stereoscopic, and high-definition laparoscopic monitor displays on surgical technique. Surg Endosc 24(11):2743–2748PubMedCrossRef
41.
McDougall EM, Soble JJ, Wolf JS, Nakada SY, Elashry OM, Clayman RV (1996) Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic video systems. J Endourol 10(4):371–374PubMedCrossRef
42.
Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, Liu K, Lee CM, Whang K, Hunter JG (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 237(4):460–469PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Pietrabissa A, Scarcello E, Carobbi A, Mosca F (1994) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video system for the trained endoscopic surgeon and the beginner. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 2(6):315–317PubMed
44.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2011) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 9(8):672–677PubMedCrossRef
45.
Birkett D, Josephs L, Este-McDonald J (1994) A new 3-D laparoscope in gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Endosc 8(12):1448–1451PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review
Authors
Stine Maya Dreier Sørensen
Mona Meral Savran
Lars Konge
Flemming Bjerrum
Publication date
01-01-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4189-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2016 Go to the issue

Technique

Transcutaneous pleural biopsy with a retrograde forceps: a novel approach

OriginalPaper

Outcomes in 132 patients following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with greater than 5-year follow-up

OriginalPaper

Endocuff®-assisted colonoscopy increases polyp detection rate: a simulated randomized study involving an anatomic colorectal model and 32 international endoscopists

Erratum

Erratum to: Comparison of laparoscopic versus open left-sided hepatectomy for intrahepatic duct stones

Review

Redefining early gastric cancer

OriginalPaper

Single-port laparoscopic resection for diverticular disease: experiences with more than 300 consecutive patients