A retrospective single-center study comparing clinical outcomes of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis

A Comparison of Three-Dimensional Visualization Systems and Two-Dimensional Visualization Systems During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Narrative Review

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a common procedure for the definitive treatment for cholecystitis and symptomatic cholelithiasis. One advancement in minimally invasive surgery has been the development of three-dimensional (3D) visualization systems to provide stereopsis. It is yet to be determined whether this innovation is beneficial to the surgeon or simply just a gimmick. This narrative review aims to answer the following research question, what is the impact of 3D visualization systems on surgical efficiency compared with two-dimensional visualization systems in laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Methods: Through a broad literature search it was determined that operative time and intraoperative errors have been used in published research to assess intraoperative efficiency. Results: Studies published to date have used operative time, intraoperative errors, and intraoperative bleeding as current measures for intraoperative efficiency. Previous meta-analysis have shown a slight improvement in operative time for 3D visualization systems; however, subsequent randomized control trials have not shown a significant difference in operative time. Reporting of intraoperative errors has been quite subjective and a difference between visualisation modality has not been shown. Conclusion: 3D visualization systems have shown a minor improvement in operative time compared with traditional laparoscopic systems and it is unlikely to be of any clinical significance. Studies that measure intraoperative error vary greatly in what they report, and which assessment tool is used. Across existing literature, studies do not control for surgeon's experience, elective/emergent cases, and grade of gallbladder/difficulty. Further research is required, using novel tools for assessment in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to determine intraoperative differences through objective and quantitative variables.

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.

Comparative Study of the Influence of Three-Dimensional Versus Two-Dimensional Urological Laparoscopy on Surgeons' Surgical Performance and Ergonomics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the use of three-dimensional (3D) vision systems with traditional two-dimensional systems in laparoscopic urological surgery, analyzing the benefits, limitations, and impact of introducing this medical technology with regard to surgical performance and the surgeon's ergonomics. Methods: A systematic review with a structured bibliographic search was conducted in the electronic libraries (PubMed and EMBASE) until August 2019 and with no language restrictions. Studies on 3D visualization technology in laparoscopic urologic surgery, randomized controlled trials, and observational comparative studies were included. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Results: A total of 25 articles were obtained, of which 4 were clinical studies with patients, 2 studies were carried out in experimental animal models, and the remaining 19 were conducted in simulated environments. Regarding the European training program in basic laparoscopic urological skills, the results showed no significant differences in execution time using either imaging system. Three-dimensional vision led to a significant reduction in surgery time in pyeloplasty and radical nephrectomy. In addition, there was a reported decrease in blood loss in adrenalectomy, nephron-sparing nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, simple nephrectomy, and pyeloplasty using 3D vision. Regarding ergonomics, the studies generally described no differences in side effects (headache, nausea, eye strain) when comparing the two types of visualization systems. Surgeons reported reduced workloads and stress with 3D vision than with traditional laparoscopy. Conclusions: Three-dimensional laparoscopic systems essentially advance surgical performance in less-experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Three-dimensional laparoscopy leads to improvements in surgery time, which is important for specific surgical procedures involving intracorporeal ligatures and sutures. The results achieved on the surgeons' ergonomics showed better depth perception and decreased stress and workloads during 3D vision with no differences in potential side effects.