ArticlesRandomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Introduction
In minimum-access surgery (MAS), the image-display system is the visual interface between the surgeon and the operative field. Conventional video-endoscopic systems provide the surgeon with a two-dimensional magnified image at a much lower resolution than that of human eye. For controlled endoscopic manipulations, the surgeon has to reconstruct a three-dimensional picture from a two-dimensional image and to adjust the speed of instrument movement with the degree of magnification. This adjustment entails intense perceptual and mental processing, which has to be sustained throughout the operation. These limitations of current image-display systems help to explain the poorer task performance in MAS than with direct normal vision.1, 2
During the past 5 years, three-dimensional imaging systems have been introduced in an attempt to improve depth perception during MAS. Most are based on rapid sequential imaging, alternating between the two eyes by means of optical shutters (active or passive), thus presenting two slightly different images in an alternating sequence to each of the eyes separated by a few milliseconds. This arrangement differs from normal stereoscopic vision, which entails coinstantaneous images on each retina with the image falling on different sectors of the two retinas (retinal disparity), eyeball convergence, accommodation, and input from the vestibular system.
Several reports and reviews have suggested that the three-dimensional systems improve task efficiency in endoscopic manipulations,3, 4, 5, 6 whereas other studies found no difference between three-dimensional and two-dimensional systems.7 The reported benefit in clinical practice has been based on subjective impression rather than objective data and there have been no randomised studies.4, 5, 6 We have addressed this issue by a prospective randomised comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Section snippets
Methods
The patients recruited for the study had symptomatic gallstone disease and were admitted to the Professorial Unit at Ninewells Hospital for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients who had acute cholecystitis or who had undergone major upper abdominal surgery previously were excluded from the study (figure).
Four specialist registrars carried out the operations as part of the usual supervised higher surgical training programme. Before the trial, each participating registrar had done at
Results
The two groups of patients were similar in terms of age (mean 52 years [range 27–87] for two-dimensional group vs 58 years [30–77] for three-dimensional group) and sex (eight men, 22 women vs seven men, 23 women). The operations were rated as difficulty grade 1 in 11 patients in the two-dimensional group and 13 in the three-dimensional group; grade 2 in nine and ten, respectively; and grade 3 in ten and seven, respectively.
The execution times for the component tasks and the entire operation did
Discussion
We found that the performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not affected by use of three-dimensional imaging rather than conventional two-dimensional systems. This finding can be explained by the nature of the surgical task, the limitations of stereoscopy in visual displays, and by surgeon-related factors such as structured endoscopic training, experience in open surgery and MAS, and adaptation to two-dimensional imaging.
The operative field has many monocular depth cues, such as
References (20)
- et al.
Three dimensional video-endoscopy: clinical use in gynaecological laparoscopy
Lancet
(1994) - et al.
Comparison of direct vision and electronic two- and three-dimensional display systems on surgical task efficiency in endoscopic surgery
Br J Surg
(1995) - et al.
Sensing and manipulation problems in endoscopic surgery: experiment, analysis and observation
Presence
(1993) - et al.
Three dimensional versus two dimensional video system for the trained endoscopic surgeon and the beginner
Endosc Surg Allied Technol
(1994) - et al.
Comparison of two-dimensional vs three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery
Surg Endosc
(1997) - et al.
A new 3-D laparoscope in gastrointestinal surgery
Surg Endosc
(1994) - et al.
The state of 3-D technology and evaluation
Min Invas Ther
(1996) - et al.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the Dundee technique
Br J Surg
(1991) - et al.
Three dimensional displays: perception, implementation and applications (CSERIAC SOAR-89-01)
(1989) - et al.
A quantitative evaluation of perspective and stereoscopic displays in three-axis manual tracking tasks
IEEE Trans Syst Man CyBern
(1987)
Cited by (268)
Application and progress of the detection technologies in hepatocellular carcinoma
2023, Genes and DiseasesThe Role of Three-dimensional Laparoscopy in Gynecology: Time to Revise Our Perspective?
2024, Gynecology and Minimally Invasive TherapyThe effects of 3D/Full HD and 2D/Ultra HD imaging systems on suturing skills during total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective cohort study
2024, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics