Case-matched study of short-term effects of 3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer

Abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the security and efficacy of 3D vs 2D laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment.MethodsForty-six patients who suffered from rectal cancer and went on laparoscopic radical resection of rectal carcinoma in Peking University Shougang Hospital from Feb. 2015 to Mar. 2016 were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups. The 23 patients operated with the 3D system were compared with 23 patients operated with the 2D system by perioperative data.ResultsThere were no significant differences in age, sex, pathological type, tumor differentiation, TNM staging, and surgical procedures (P > 0.05). The average operating time of 3D laparoscopic surgery group (172.2 ± 27.5 min) was shorter than that of 2D group (192.6 ± 22.3) (P < 0.05); the rate of transfer to laparotomy is lower in 2D group (72.7%) than in 3D group (86.4%), but they have no significant difference; and the intraoperative blood loss (247.0 ± 173.6 ml vs 282.6 ± 195.6 ml), postoperative passage of flatus (2.8 ± 0.8 days vs 3.1 ± 1.0 days), and indwelling catheter time (5.6 ± 1.9 days vs 6.3 ± 2.0 days) in 3D group and 2D group (P > 0.05) were not significantly different. There were no differences in other complications between the two groups. No significantly different recrudescence and death rates were found between the two groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionThe 3D laparoscopy shortens the operation time of rectum cancer. 3D laparoscopic surgery is more efficient in treatment of rectal cancer than 2D laparoscopy and is worth of being generalized.

Three-dimensional Versus Two-dimensional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…The screening process lead to full-text evaluation of 12 studies. Finally, five retrospective comparative studies and one RCT met the predefined criteria and were included in the review (9,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). Three studies were conducted in China, one in Korea, one in Italy and one in the UK.…”

“…The majority of included studies in this review were retrospective cohort studies (9,(19)(20)(21)(22). Only one of six eligible studies was an RCT (23).…”

“…The time required for completing the procedure favored the 3D group, with a difference of about 7.5 minutes. However, due to the high heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis was in vivo 34: 11-21 (2020) 16 (22) the operative time was significantly lower for the 3D group. These findings might be attributed to the difference in experience among surgeons, but the overall results approached statistically significant levels (p=0.06).…”

“…Su et al (9) Currò et al (19) Tao et al (20) Yoon et al (21) Zeng et al (22) Curtis et al (23) Patients , n 97 50 58 278 46 85 2D 43 25 31 167 23 42 3D 54 25 27 111 23 43 Complications, n 12 1 7 21 19 110 2D 6 0 3 12 10 56 3D 6 1 4 9 9 54 Anastomotic leak 2D 0 0 1 1 0 2 3D 0 1 0 0 0 3…”

A laparoscopic study investigating 3D vs 2D imaging systems using a pelvitrainer model with experts, non-experts, and students

“…For example, surgeons experience fatigue more quickly, there are only four degrees of freedom and operations take longer [4,5]. With the help of 3-dimensional (3D) visualizations it is possible to shorten the operation time and achieve cost reductions [6]. Additionally, higher precision and fewer mistakes are made [7,8,9].…”