Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 11, pp 3658–3668 | Cite as

Three-Dimensional Versus Two-Dimensional Video-Assisted Endoscopic Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Data

  • Hengrui Liang
  • Wenhua Liang
  • Zhao Lei
  • Zhichao Liu
  • Wei Wang
  • Jiaxi He
  • Yuan Zeng
  • Weizhe Huang
  • Manting Wang
  • Yuehan Chen
  • Jianxing He
  • Written on behalf of AME Lung Cancer Cooperative Group
Original Scientific Report
  • 190 Downloads

Abstract

Background

There have been no studies to systematically evaluate the two display (3D vs. 2D) systems regarding both laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgeries in clinical settings; thus, we conducted one to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different visualization systems (two-dimensional and three-dimensional) during endoscopic surgery (laparoscopy or thoracoscopy) in clinical settings.

Methods

A comprehensive search of online databases was performed. Perioperative outcomes were synthesized. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the temporal trend of pooled outcomes. Specific subgroups (laparoscopy vs. thoracoscopy, prospective vs. retrospective study, malignant vs. benign diseases) were examined. Meta-regression was conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity.

Results

Twenty-three articles were considered in this analysis, of which 7 were thoracoscopic and 16 were laparoscopic surgeries. A total of 2930 patients were recorded, of which 1367 underwent 3D video-assisted surgery and 1563 underwent 2D display. Overall, significantly shorter operating time (SMD −0.69; p = <0.001), less blood loss (SMD −0.26; p = 0.028) and shorter hospital stays (SMD −0.16; p = 0.016) were found in the 3D display group. Meanwhile, the perioperative morbidity (OR 0.92; p = 0.487), retrieved lymph nodes (SMD 0.09; p = 0.081), drainage duration (SMD −0.15; p = 0.105) and drainage volume (SMD 0.00; p = 0.994) were similar between the two groups. Comparison of the overall outcomes in each subset showed consistency in all groups.

Conclusions

This up-to-date meta-analysis reveals that the 3D display system is superior to the 2D system in clinical settings with significantly shorter operating time, less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. These findings suggest that, in laparoscopic or thoracoscopic surgeries, 3D endoscopic system is preferable when condition permits. Future efforts should be made on decreasing the side effects of 3D display and increasing its cost-effectiveness.

Notes

Acknowledgements

All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. H-R L and Z-C L contributed to the data acquisition. H-R L, W-H L, Y-H C and Z-C L contributed to the analysis and writing of the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript. We thank Lindsey Hamblin for assistance with the language revision.

Funding

This work was supported by the following funding: Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China (Grant Numbers: 2007B031515017; 2008A030201024); Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou, China (Grant Numbers: 2007Z1-E0111; 2007Z3-E0261); and Guangzhou Health and Medical Collaborative Innovative Major Special Projects (Grant No. 201400000001-2)

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

268_2018_4681_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)
268_2018_4681_MOESM2_ESM.tif (6.5 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 6626 kb)
268_2018_4681_MOESM3_ESM.tif (2 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 2092 kb)
268_2018_4681_MOESM4_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet (London, England) 351(9098):248–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sakata S, Watson MO, Grove PM, Stevenson AR (2016) The conflicting evidence of three-dimensional displays in laparoscopy: a review of systems old and new. Ann Surg 263(2):234–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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):438–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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):1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ozsoy M, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, Panagopoulos V, Vasilas M, Sakellaropoulos GC, Liatsikos E (2015) Novice surgeons: do they benefit from 3D laparoscopy? Lasers Med Sci 30(4):1325–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fergo C, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, Kildebro N, Rosenberg J (2017) Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg 213(1):159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knobloch K, Yoon U, Vogt PM (2011) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg Off Publ Eur Assoc Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg 39(2):91–92Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K (2014) The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag 3(3):123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seagroatt V, Stratton I (1998) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Test had 10% false positive rate. BMJ 316(7129):470 (author reply 470-471) PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiao P, Wu QJ, Sun YG, Ma C, Tian WX, Yu HB, Tong HF (2017) Comparative study of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic two-port lobectomy. Thorac Cancer 8(1):3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang CL, Wang W, Mo LL, Zhang L, Peng GL, Yu ZW, Liu YY, He JX (2016) Short-term outcome of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracic surgery for benign pulmonary diseases. Ann Thorac Surg 101(4):1297–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dong S, Yang XN, Zhong WZ, Nie Q, Liao RQ, Lin JT, Wu YL (2016) Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional visualization in video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Thorac Cancer 7(5):530–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang C, Mo L, Ma Y, Peng G, Ren Y, Wang W, Liu Y, He J (2015) A comparative analysis of lung cancer patients treated with lobectomy via three-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus two-dimensional resection. J Thorac Dis 7(10):1798–1805PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li Z, Li JP, Qin X, Xu BB, Han YD, Liu SD, Zhu WZ, Peng MZ, Lin Q (2015) Three-dimensional vs two-dimensional video assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 21(37):10675–10682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hou Y, Guo W, Yang Z, Zhao J (2015) Comparative study of 3D thoracoscopic esophagectomy versus 2D thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi = Chin J Gastrointest Surg 18(9):889–892Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bagan P, De Dominicis F, Hernigou J, Dakhil B, Zaimi R, Pricopi C, Le Pimpec Barthes F, Berna P (2015) Complete thoracoscopic lobectomy for cancer: comparative study of three-dimensional high-definition with two-dimensional high-definition video systems dagger. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 20(6):820–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Padin EM, Santos RS, Fernandez SG, Jimenez AB, Fernandez SE, Dacosta EC, Duran AR, Artime Rial M, Dominguez Sanchez I (2017) Impact of three-dimensional laparoscopy in a bariatric surgery program: influence in the learning curve. Obes Surg 27:2552–2556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu J, Zheng CH, Zheng HL, Li P, Xie JW, Wang JB, Lin JX, Chen QY, Cao LL, Lin M et al (2017) Randomized, controlled trial comparing clinical outcomes of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an interim report. Surg Endosc 31(7):2939–2945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kanaji S, Suzuki S, Harada H, Nishi M, Yamamoto M, Matsuda T, Oshikiri T, Nakamura T, Fujino Y, Tominaga M et al (2017) Comparison of two- and three-dimensional display for performance of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402(3):493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ji F, Fang X, Fei B (2017) Comparative study of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgery for gastrointestinal tumors. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi = Chin J Gastrointest Surg 20(5):509–513Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zeng N, Fang C, Yang J, Xiang N, Zhu W, Liu J, Chen Q, Liang H, Huang W (2016) Application of three-dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for complicated gallstone disease. Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = J South Med Univ 36(1):145–147Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Velayutham V, Fuks D, Nomi T, Kawaguchi Y, Gayet B (2016) 3D visualization reduces operating time when compared to high-definition 2D in laparoscopic liver resection: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 30(1):147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tao K, Liu X, Deng M, Shi W, Gao J (2016) Three-dimensional against 2-dimensional laparoscopic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 26(4):324–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tang FJ, Qi L, Jiang HC, Tong SY, Li Y (2016) Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of 3D and 2D imaging systems for laparoscopic radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. J Int Med Res 44(3):613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ruan Y, Wang XH, Wang K, Zhao YY, Xia SJ, Xu DL (2016) Clinical evaluation and technical features of three-dimensional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with selective segmental artery clamping. World J Urol 34(5):679–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Komatsuda A, Matsumoto K, Miyajima A, Kaneko G, Mizuno R, Kikuchi E, Oya M (2016) Technical improvement using a three-dimensional video system for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev APJCP 17(5):2475–2478PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ji G, Qi S, Ji F, Tao Y, Ma C, Fang X (2016) Comparative study of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy in short-term efficacy. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi = Chin J Gastrointest Surg 19(5):545–548Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abou-Haidar H, Al-Qaoud T, Jednak R, Brzezinski A, El-Sherbiny M, Capolicchio JP (2016) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Initial experience with 3D vision laparoscopy and articulating shears. J Pediatr Urol 12(6):426.e421–426.e425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bove P, Iacovelli V, Celestino F, De Carlo F, Vespasiani G, Finazzi Agro E (2015) 3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in organ-confined prostate cancer: comparison of operative data and pentafecta rates: a single cohort study. BMC Urol 15:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zou Z, Huang Z, Li Q, Chen F, Zhao D, Wang M (2014) A comparative study of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic subtotal thyroidectomy via a breast approach. Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = J South Med Univ 34(8):1233–1234Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xu W, Li H, Ji Z, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Xiao H, Liu G (2014) Comparison of three dimensional and two dimentional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Zhonghua wai ke za zhi = Chin J Surg 52(10):771–774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aykan S, Singhal P, Nguyen DP, Yigit A, Tuken M, Yakut E, Colakerol A, Sulejman S, Semercioz A (2014) Perioperative, pathologic, and early continence outcomes comparing three-dimensional and two-dimensional display systems for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy–a retrospective, single-surgeon study. J Endourol 28(5):539–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sorensen SM, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(1):11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kyriazis I, Ozsoy M, Kallidonis P, Vasilas M, Panagopoulos V, Liatsikos E (2015) Integrating three-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: the learning curve of an expert. J Endourol 29(6):657–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wilhelm D, Reiser S, Kohn N, Witte M, Leiner U, Muhlbach 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):2387–2397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sorensen SMD, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2017) 3D vision accelerates laparoscopic proficiency and skills are transferable to 2D conditions: a randomized trial. Am J Surg 214(1):63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shao W, Yin W, Wang W, Zhang X, Peng G, Chen X, Mo L, He J (2016) Glasses-free three-dimensional endoscopic bronchoplasty, arterioplasty, and angioplasty of the superior vena cava for the radical treatment of right middle upper lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 8(3):608–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liang H, Liang W, Zhao L, Chen D, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Tang S, He J (2017) Robotic versus video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002346 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, Plana MN (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252(2):254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hengrui Liang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wenhua Liang
    • 1
  • Zhao Lei
    • 3
  • Zhichao Liu
    • 2
  • Wei Wang
    • 1
  • Jiaxi He
    • 1
  • Yuan Zeng
    • 1
  • Weizhe Huang
    • 1
  • Manting Wang
    • 2
  • Yuehan Chen
    • 2
  • Jianxing He
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • Written on behalf of AME Lung Cancer Cooperative Group
  1. 1.Department of Thoracic SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Nanshan SchoolGuangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Functional Experiment CenterGuangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Respiratory DiseasesGuangzhouChina
  5. 5.National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Center for Respiratory DiseaseGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations