Comparison of perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes between 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Literature regarding experience with 3D laparoscopy about prostatectomy has remained scanty, and this could be related to the rise of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. This study aimed to perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that compared perioperative, functional, or oncologic outcomes of both 3D and 2D LRP. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool and Jadad scale were used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Review Manager 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Seven studies with a total of 542 patients were included in the analysis. Among them, two were RCTs. There was no difference between groups in terms of preoperative characteristics. Anastomosis time, hospital day, and overall complication rates were similar in 3D than 2D group. However, operative time [mean difference (MD) -36.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] -59.25 to -14.67; p = 0.001], blood loss (MD -83.5; 95% CI -123.05 to -43.94; p <0.0001), and days of drainage (MD -1.48; 95% CI -2.29 to -0.67; p = 0.0003) were lower in 3D LRP. 2D and 3D LRP showed similarity in the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 6, and 12months postoperatively. Additionally, there was no significant differences in continence and potency recovery rate between two group except higher continence rate of 3D LRP at 3 months.

Conclusion

Current evidence shows that 3D LRP offers favorable outcomes compared with 2D LRP, including operative time, blood loss, days of drainage, and early continence. However, there was no conclusive evidence that 3D LRP was advantaged in terms of oncologic and functional outcomes (except for continence rate at 3 months).

Systematic review registration

The study has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42023426403).

Operating room time savings in Germany- and UK-based hospitals with 3D- VS. 2D-imaging technology in laparoscopic surgery: Meta analysis and budget impact model - Health economic evaluation

AIMS

Opportunity cost (OC) analysis is key when evaluating surgical techniques. Operating room (OR) time is one potential source of OC in laparoscopic surgery. This study quantifies differences in OR time between 3D- and 2D-imaging technology in laparoscopic surgery, translates these into OC and models the economic impact in real-world hospitals.

METHODS

First a systematically performed literature review and meta-analysis were conducted. Then, methods to translate OR time savings into OC were theorised and a budget impact model was created. After that, the potential time savings of real-world hospital case mixes were extrapolated. Finally, the opportunity costs of not using 3D-imaging in laparoscopic surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

Average OR time saving per laparoscopic procedure was -19.4 min (-24.3; -14.5) (-14%) in favour of 3D. The Budget Impact Model demonstrated an economic impact of using 3D-laparoscopy instead of 2D laparoscopy, ranging from £183,045-£866,316 in the British and 73,049€-437,829€ in German hospitals, modelling a mixture of cost savings and performing additional procedures (earning additional revenue).

CONCLUSION

The OC analysis revealed significant economic benefits of introducing 3D-imaging technology in laparoscopic surgery, on the basis that average procedure time is reduced. Utilising the saved OR time to perform additional procedures was the biggest driver of OC. Hospital case mix and procedure volume indicated the magnitude of the OC.

Comparison of Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes of Three-Dimensional Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Preliminary Study

Background: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the first-line treatment modality for prostate cancer and can be performed using retropubic or minimally invasive techniques. New technologies such as the da Vinci robotic system and three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic imaging system have been developed to overcome the challenges of conventional laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP) and 3D laparoscopic RP (3D LRP). Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the local ethics committee and included 65 patients (38 RALP, 27 3D LRP) who underwent RP with the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer between May 2019 and January 2020. All demographic, clinical, perioperative, pathological, and postoperative variables were recorded. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of preoperative patient characteristics. The mean operative times of the RALP and 3D LRP groups were 135.74 ± 11.51 and 165.37 ± 15.86 minutes, respectively, with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = .001). The mean estimated blood loss was 237 ± 71 mL in the RALP group and 257 ± 54 mL in the 3D LRP group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = .236). In the 6 months of follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of biochemical recurrence, continence, and potency. Conclusion: RALP and 3D LRP have similar perioperative, short-term oncological and functional outcomes other than the operative time. There is a need for prospective, randomized studies with larger populations evaluating long-term oncological and functional outcomes.