Imaging in Gynecologic Surgery

Abstract

The technical development of instruments for endoscopic surgery started in the field of gynecology. In the early 1970s, with the improvement of optics and instruments for laparoscopic surgery, gyne-endoscopic surgery developed and set milestones for all other surgical fields. However, the general surgeons propagated the advantages of 2D or 3D imaging surgery much better than the conservative gynecologists. Surgery on a 2D screen without direct vision is regarded as more advantageous than open surgery and has achieved wide acceptance. Several schools of gynecologic endoscopy in Europe (in Kiel, Giessen, Clermont Ferrand and Strasbourg) have set guidelines for gyne-endoscopic surgery. Our catalog of indications in the areas of gyne-endoscopic surgery, published in 2002, reveals the broad application of these techniques today. 3D vision, robotic instruments and systems, such as the da Vinci(®) Surgical System from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (CA, USA), round up the picture of endoscopic surgery. The advantages of endoscopic surgery over open surgery (more precision, less trauma, less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays and a faster recovery period) are becoming more accepted. The present healthcare systems and hospital administrations understand the challenges of imaging in surgery, particularly in endoscopic surgery.

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

“…Additionally, higher precision and fewer mistakes are made [ 7 – 9 ]. To date, there have been a number of other studies investigating the advantages and disadvantages of using a 3D imaging system for conventional laparoscopy (LSC) [ 7 , 10 – 12 ]. Various study designs have been used, and most compare two different groups using either a 3D or 2-dimensional (2D) system for exercises on a pelvitrainer, or in vivo [ 9 – 12 ].…”

“…To date, there have been a number of other studies investigating the advantages and disadvantages of using a 3D imaging system for conventional laparoscopy (LSC) [ 7 , 10 – 12 ]. Various study designs have been used, and most compare two different groups using either a 3D or 2-dimensional (2D) system for exercises on a pelvitrainer, or in vivo [ 9 – 12 ]. In our study, an objective comparison of 3D vs 2D LSC was carried out using a pelvitrainer with a variety of standardised exercises performed by laparoscopic experts, non-experts and medical students.…”

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

“…Doctors-in-training have not previously participated in research measuring the benefits of 3D. Their inclusion is another factor that suggests the 3D technique can be easily incorporated into routine LSCs, which are currently an important aspect of modern surgery [11,12,13]. There are examples of robot-assisted LSCs, such as the Da Vinci, which benefits from 3D visualization and increased degrees of freedom to provide better results [14,15].…”

“…Additionally, higher precision and fewer mistakes are made [7,8,9]. To date, there have been a number of other studies investigating the advantages and disadvantages of using a 3D imaging system for conventional laparoscopy (LSC) [7,10,11,12]. Various study designs have been used, and most compare two different groups using either a 3D or 2-dimensional (2D) system for exercises on a pelvitrainer, or in vivo [9,10,11,12].…”

“…To date, there have been a number of other studies investigating the advantages and disadvantages of using a 3D imaging system for conventional laparoscopy (LSC) [7,10,11,12]. Various study designs have been used, and most compare two different groups using either a 3D or 2-dimensional (2D) system for exercises on a pelvitrainer, or in vivo [9,10,11,12]. In our study, an objective comparison of 3D vs 2D LSC was carried out using a pelvitrainer with a variety of standardised exercises performed by laparoscopic experts, non-experts and medical students.…”