Annals of Surgery Open (Jun 2024)

Surgeon Preference and Clinical Outcome of 3D Vision Compared to 2D Vision in Laparoscopic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

  • Rawin Amiri, BSc,
  • Maurice J. W. Zwart, PhD,
  • Leia R. Jones, BSc,
  • Mohammad Abu Hilal, PhD, FRCS,
  • Harrie P. Beerlage, PhD, FEBU,
  • Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen, PhD,
  • Wytze W. Lameris, PhD,
  • Willem A. Bemelman, PhD,
  • Marc G. Besselink, MD, MSc, PhD

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000415
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 2
p. e415

Abstract

Read online

Objective:. To assess the added value of 3-dimensional (3D) vision, including high definition (HD) technology, in laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgeon preference and clinical outcome. Background:. The use of 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery has been suggested to improve surgical performance. However, the added value of 3D vision remains unclear as a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 3D vision including HD technology in laparoscopic surgery is currently lacking. Methods:. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with a literature search up to May 2023 using PubMed and Embase (PROSPERO, CRD42021290426). We included RCTs comparing 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) vision in laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was operative time. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model to estimate the pooled effect size expressed in standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The level of evidence and quality was assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results:. Overall, 25 RCTs with 3003 patients were included. Operative time was reduced by 3D vision (−8.0%; SMD, −0.22; 95% CI, −0.37 to −0.06; P = 0.007; n = 3003; 24 studies; I2 = 75%) compared to 2D vision. This benefit was mostly seen in bariatric surgery (−16.3%; 95% CI, −1.28 to −0.21; P = 0.006; 2 studies; n = 58; I2 = 0%) and general surgery (−6.7%; 95% CI, −0.34 to −0.01; P = 0.036; 9 studies; n = 1056; I2 = 41%). Blood loss was nonsignificantly reduced by 3D vision (SMD, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.68 to 0.017; P = 0.060; n = 1830; I2 = 92%). No differences in the rates of morbidity (14.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.644), mortality (0% vs 0%), conversion (0.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.898), and hospital stay (9.6 vs 10.5 days, P = 0.078) were found between 3D and 2D vision. In 15 RCTs that reported on surgeon preference, 13 (87%) reported that the majority of surgeons favored 3D vision. Conclusions:. Across 25 RCTs, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated shorter operative time with 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery, without differences in other outcomes. The majority of surgeons participating in the RCTs reported in favor of 3D vision.