Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery: a systematic review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Fergo, Charlotte

AU - Burcharth, Jakob

AU - Pommergaard, Hans-Christian

AU - Kildebro, Niels

AU - Rosenberg, Jacob

N1 - Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: This systematic review investigates newer generation 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy in terms of error rating, performance time, and subjective assessment as early comparisons have shown contradictory results due to technological shortcomings.DATA SOURCES: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing newer generation 3D-laparoscopy with 2D-laparoscopy were included through searches in Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database.CONCLUSIONS: Of 643 articles, 13 RCTs were included, of which 2 were clinical trials. Nine of 13 trials (69%) and 10 of 13 trials (77%) found a significant reduction in performance time and error, respectively, with the use of 3D-laparoscopy. Overall, 3D-laparoscopy was found to be superior or equal to 2D-laparoscopy. All trials featuring subjective evaluation found a superiority of 3D-laparoscopy. More clinical RCTs are still awaited for the convincing results to be reproduced.

AB - BACKGROUND: This systematic review investigates newer generation 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy in terms of error rating, performance time, and subjective assessment as early comparisons have shown contradictory results due to technological shortcomings.DATA SOURCES: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing newer generation 3D-laparoscopy with 2D-laparoscopy were included through searches in Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database.CONCLUSIONS: Of 643 articles, 13 RCTs were included, of which 2 were clinical trials. Nine of 13 trials (69%) and 10 of 13 trials (77%) found a significant reduction in performance time and error, respectively, with the use of 3D-laparoscopy. Overall, 3D-laparoscopy was found to be superior or equal to 2D-laparoscopy. All trials featuring subjective evaluation found a superiority of 3D-laparoscopy. More clinical RCTs are still awaited for the convincing results to be reproduced.

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.07.030

DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.07.030

M3 - Review

C2 - 27816196

SN - 0002-9610

VL - 213

SP - 159

EP - 170

JO - American Journal of Surgery

JF - American Journal of Surgery

IS - 1

ER -