BACKGROUND: To address the issue whether three-dimensional (3D) offers real operative time advantages to the laparoscopic surgical procedure, we have designed a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparison of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) imaging during two different bariatric procedures. METHODS: Forty morbidly obese patients were randomized on the day of surgery by a random computer-generated allocation list to receive either a 3D high-definition (HD) display or 2D HD imaging system laparoscopic bariatric procedure by a single experienced surgeon. Forty operations were performed with either a 3D HD display or 2D HD imaging system. After the insertion of the access ports, both surgical procedures were divided in component tasks, and the execution times were compared. RESULTS: The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks were not significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups during sleeve gastrectomy. The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks, except for the first one, were significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups during mini-gastric bypass (p < 0.05). The surgeon experienced better depth perception with the 3D system and subjectively reported less strain using 3D vision system rather than the 2D system particularly during longer procedure. CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging seems to decrease the performance time of more difficult bariatric procedures, which involve surgical tasks as suturing and intestinal measurement. Further comparative studies are necessary to address the issue if novice surgeons could benefit from reduced learning curve requested with 3D vision and to verify with greater numbers if 3D imaging can reduce complications.
Three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparative study
Curro', Giuseppe;
2015-01-01
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To address the issue whether three-dimensional (3D) offers real operative time advantages to the laparoscopic surgical procedure, we have designed a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparison of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) imaging during two different bariatric procedures. METHODS: Forty morbidly obese patients were randomized on the day of surgery by a random computer-generated allocation list to receive either a 3D high-definition (HD) display or 2D HD imaging system laparoscopic bariatric procedure by a single experienced surgeon. Forty operations were performed with either a 3D HD display or 2D HD imaging system. After the insertion of the access ports, both surgical procedures were divided in component tasks, and the execution times were compared. RESULTS: The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks were not significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups during sleeve gastrectomy. The execution times for the entire procedure and the single tasks, except for the first one, were significantly different between the 2D and 3D groups during mini-gastric bypass (p < 0.05). The surgeon experienced better depth perception with the 3D system and subjectively reported less strain using 3D vision system rather than the 2D system particularly during longer procedure. CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging seems to decrease the performance time of more difficult bariatric procedures, which involve surgical tasks as suturing and intestinal measurement. Further comparative studies are necessary to address the issue if novice surgeons could benefit from reduced learning curve requested with 3D vision and to verify with greater numbers if 3D imaging can reduce complications.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
