Two-dimensional (2-D) vs. three-dimensional (3-D) laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for colon cancer: comparison of short-term results

Which video technology brings the higher cognitive burden and motion sickness in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 3D, 2D-4 K or 3D-4 K? a propensity score study

BACKGROUND

Technological development has offered laparoscopic colorectal surgeons new video systems to improve depth perception and perform difficult task in limited space. The aim of this study was to assess the cognitive burden and motion sickness for surgeons during 3D, 2D-4 K or 3D-4 K laparoscopic colorectal procedures and to report post-operative data with the different video systems employed.

METHODS

Patients were assigned to either 3D, 2D-4 K or 3D-4 K video and two questionnaires (Simulator Sickness Questionnaire-SSQ- and NASA Task Load Index -TLX) were used during elective laparoscopic colorectal resections (October 2020-August 2022) from two operating surgeons. Short-term results of the operations performed with the three different video systems were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 113 consecutive patients were included: 41 (36%) in the 3D Group (A), 46 (41%) in the 3D-4 K Group and 26 (23%) in the 2D-4 K Group (C). Weighted and adjusted regression models showed no significant difference in cognitive load amongst the surgeons in the three groups of video systems when using the NASA-TLX. An increased risk for slight/moderate general discomfort and eyestrain in the 3D-4 K group compared with 2D-4 K group (OR = 3.5; p = 0.0057 and OR = 2.8; p = 0.0096, respectively) was observed. Further, slight/moderate difficulty focusing was lower in both 3D and 3D-4 K groups compared with 2D-4 K group (OR = 0.4; p = 0.0124 and OR = 0.5; p = 0.0341, respectively), and higher in the 3D-4 K group compared with 3D group (OR = 2.6; p = 0.0124). Patient population characteristics, operative time, post-operative staging, complication rate and length of stay were similar in the three groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

3D and 3D-4 K systems, when compared with 2D-4 K video technology, have a higher risk for slight/moderate general discomfort and eyestrain, but show lower difficulty focusing. Short post-operative outcomes do not differ, whichever imaging system is used.

Does 3D laparoscopic video technology affect long-term survival in right hemicolectomy for cancer compared to standard 2D? A propensity score study

BACKGROUND

There are few studies focused on the short-term results of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy performed with 2D (two-dimension) or 3D (three-dimension) video technology and none on the oncologic effects. The aim of the study was to assess the long-term results of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) with intracorporeal anastomosis using 3D or 2D video in patients with right colon cancer with at least three years of oncologic follow-up.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) with intracorporeal anastomosis for cancer in an 11-year period (June 2008-June 2019) and ≥ 3 years of follow-up were prospectively collected. Surgical procedures were performed by two expert laparoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

111 patients were included in the study: 56 (50.5%) in the 3D group and 55 (49.5%) in the 2D group. Tumor stage and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar. Overall and disease-free survival were not different in the two groups. Local recurrence occurred in none of the patients, and distant metachronous metastases were similar in the two groups. A propensity score weighting approach was used to account for potential confounding related to patients' nonrandom allocation to the 2 groups. The effects of the intervention on postoperative outcomes were assessed with a weighted regression approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic 3D technology allows similar oncological results as 2D vision in LRH with intracorporeal anastomosis. Larger prospective randomized studies might confirm these results in the long-term follow-up.

Must Clinics Replace 2D by 3D Environments for an Efficient Training of Laparoscopic Novices? A Critical Analysis of the Learning Curve for Basic Skills

Background and Aims

Published studies repeatedly demonstrate an advantage of three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic surgery over two-dimensional (2D) systems but with quite heterogeneous results. This raises the question whether clinics must replace 2D technologies to ensure effective training of future surgeons.

Methods

We recruited 45 students with no experience in laparoscopic surgery and comparable characteristics in terms of vision and frequency of video game usage. The students were randomly allocated to 3D (n = 23) or 2D (n = 22) groups and performed 10 runs of a laparoscopic “peg transfer” task in the Luebeck Toolbox. A repeated-measures ANOVA for operation times and a generalized linear mixed model for error rates were calculated. The main effects of laparoscopic condition and run, as well as the interaction term between the two, were examined.

Results

No statistically significant differences in operation times and error rates were observed between 2D and 3D groups (p = 0.10 and p = 0.72, respectively). The learning curve showed a significant reduction in operation time and error rates (both p's < 0.001). No significant interactions between group and run were detected (operation time: p = 0.342, error rates: p = 0.83). With respect to both endpoints studied, the learning curves reached their plateau at the 7th run.

Conclusion

The result of our study with laparoscopic novices revealed no significant difference between 2D and 3D technology with respect to performance time and the error rate in a simple standardized test. In the future, surgeons may thus still be trained in both techniques.