Anzeige
Erschienen in:
01.08.2015
High-definition resolution three-dimensional imaging systems in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: randomized comparative study with high-definition resolution two-dimensional systems
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 8/2015
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Background
Three-dimensional (3D) imaging systems have been introduced worldwide for surgical instrumentation. A difficulty of laparoscopic surgery involves converting two-dimensional (2D) images into 3D images and depth perception rearrangement. 3D imaging may remove the need for depth perception rearrangement and therefore have clinical benefits.
Methods
We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial to compare the surgical outcome of 3D-high-definition (HD) resolution and 2D-HD imaging in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), in order to determine whether an LRP under HD resolution 3D imaging is superior to that under HD resolution 2D imaging in perioperative outcome, feasibility, and fatigue. One-hundred twenty-two patients were randomly assigned to a 2D or 3D group. The primary outcome was time to perform vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA), which is technically demanding and may include a number of technical difficulties considered in laparoscopic surgeries.
Results
VUA time was not significantly shorter in the 3D group (26.7 min, mean) compared with the 2D group (30.1 min, mean) (p = 0.11, Student’s t test). However, experienced surgeons and 3D-HD imaging were independent predictors for shorter VUA times (p = 0.000, p = 0.014, multivariate logistic regression analysis). Total pneumoperitoneum time was not different. No conversion case from 3D to 2D or LRP to open RP was observed. Fatigue was evaluated by a simulation sickness questionnaire and critical flicker frequency. Results were not different between the two groups. Subjective feasibility and satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the 3D group.
Conclusions
Using a 3D imaging system in LRP may have only limited advantages in decreasing operation times over 2D imaging systems. However, the 3D system increased surgical feasibility and decreased surgeons’ effort levels without inducing significant fatigue.