Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of three-dimensional (3D) endovision system versus ultra-high-definition 4K endovision system in minimally invasive surgical procedures: a randomized-open label pilot study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Experimental work comparing 3-Dimensional (3D) and 4K ultra-high-definition endovision system (4K) indicates that the latter with double the resolution of standard 2D high-definition systems may provide additional visual cues to compensate for the lack of stereoscopic vision. There is paucity of studies comparing 3D and 4K system in clinical settings. This randomized study compares 3D and 4K systems in three laparoscopic procedures of increasing complexity.

Methods

139 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (60 patients), transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair (49 patients) and laparoscopic Heller’s cardiomyotomy with anti- reflux procedure (30 patients) between May 2018 and February 2020 were randomized to undergo surgery using either 3D or 4K systems. Primary objective was to measure total operative time. Secondary objectives were to compare workload perceived by surgeons using SURG-TLX and surgeon satisfaction score. Timings of key surgical steps and peri-operative course of the patients was also recorded. Data were analyzed using Stata Corp. 2015.

Results

Patients undergoing surgery with 3D and 4K systems were comparable in their clinical and demographic profiles. The mean total operative time in 3D and 4K groups was comparable in cholecystectomy (52.7 vs 56.2, p = 0.50), TAPP (63.8 vs 69.6, p = 0.25) and Heller’s cardiomyotomy (124.7 vs 143.3, p = 0.14) with faster hiatal dissection in 3D group

(8 min, p = 0.02). Operative time was better in patients undergoing Heller’s myotomy with Angle of His accentuation with 3D by 28 min (p = 0.03). Total workload was similar in 3D and 4K groups in all the procedures but mental & physical demand was lower in 3D group in Heller’s cardiomyotomy (p = 0.03, p = 0.01), Surgeon satisfaction score was comparable in all three procedures.

Conclusion

Overall, 3D HD and 4K systems are comparable in performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, TAPP and Heller’s Cardiomyotomy. Hiatal dissection time, mental and physical task load was better with 3D in Heller’s Cardiomyotomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kelley WE (2008) The evolution of laparoscopy and the revolution in surgery in the decade of the 1990s. JSLS 12:351–357

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kourambas J, Preminger GM (2001) Advances in camera, video, and imaging technologies in laparoscopy. Urol Clin N Am 28(1):5–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hagiike M, Phillips EH, Berci G (2007) Performance differences in laparoscopic surgical skills between true high-definition and three-chip CCD video systems. Surg Endosc 21(10):1849–1854

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pierre SA, Ferrandino MN, Simmons WN, Fernandez C, Zhong P, Albala DM (2009) High definition laparoscopy: objective assessment of performance characteristics and comparison with standard laparoscopy. J Endourol 23(3):523–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ukai K, Howarth PA (2008) Visual fatigue caused by viewing stereoscopic motion images: background, theories, and observations. Displays 29(2):106–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwab K, Smith R, Brown V, Whyte M, Jourdan I (2017) Evolution of stereoscopic imaging in surgery and recent advances. World J Gastrointest Endosc 9(8):368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bilgen K, Üstün M, Karakahya M, Işik S, Şengül S, Çetinkünar S (2013) Comparison of 3D imaging and 2D imaging for performance time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(2):180–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fergo C, Burcharth J, Pommergaard H-C, Kildebro N, Rosenberg J (2017) Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg 213(1):159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Arezzo A, Vettoretto N, Francis NK, Bonino MA, Curtis NJ, Amparore D (2019) The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018. Surg Endosc 33(10):3251–3274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Woo P (2015) 4K video-laryngoscopy and video-stroboscopy: preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 127:77

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rigante M, Rocca GL, Lauretti L, D’Alessandris GQ, Mangiola A, Anile C (2017) Preliminary experience with 4K ultra-high definition endoscope: analysis of pros and cons in skull base surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 37:237–241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harada H, Kanaji S, Hasegawa H, Yamamoto M, Matsuda Y, Yamashita K (2018) The effect on surgical skills of expert surgeons using 3D/HD and 2D/4K resolution monitors in laparoscopic phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 32(10):4228–4234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunstan M, Smith R, Schwab K, Scala A, Gatenby P, Whyte M (2020) Is 3D faster and safer than 4K laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised-controlled trial. Surg Endosc 34(4):1729–1735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Walraven J (1975) Amblyopia screening with random-dot stereograms. Am J Ophthalmol 80(5):893–900

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 351(9098):248–251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson MR, Poolton JM, Malhotra N, Ngo K, Bright E, Masters RSW (2011) Development and validation of a surgical workload measure: the Surgery Task Load Index (SURG-TLX). World J Surg 35(9):1961–1969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Advances in psychology. Elsevier; 139–183.

  18. Tung KL, Yang GP, Li MK (2015) Comparative study of 2-D and bichanneled 3-D laparoscopic images: Is there a difference? Comparative study of 2-D and 3-D images. Asian J Endosc Surg 8(3):275–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Destro F, Cantone N, Lima M (2014) 3D laparoscopic monitors. Med Equip Insights 5:9–12

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kunert W, Storz P, Kirschniak A (2013) For 3D laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation: how to get maximum benefit from 3D vision. Surg Endosc 27(2):696–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kanaji S, Watanabe R, Mascagni P, Trauzettel F, Urade T, Longo F (2019) Three-dimensional imaging improved the laparoscopic performance of inexperienced operators: a prospective trial. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07308-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhattacharjee HK, Chaliyadan S, Mishra AK et al (2020) Comparison of two-dimensional high-definition, ultra-high definition and three-dimensional endovision systems: an ex-vivo randomised study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07980-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bosten JM, Goodbourn PT, Lawrance-Owen AJ, Bargary G, Hogg RE, Mollon JD (2015) A population study of binocular function. Vision Res 110:34–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bohr I, Read JCA (2013) Stereoacuity with Frisby and Revised FD2 Stereo Tests. Lappe M, editor. PLoS ONE. 8(12): e82999.

  25. Sahu PK (2014) 3D laparoscopy—help or hype: initial experience of a tertiary health centre. J Clin Diagn Res. 8(7):1–3

    Google Scholar 

  26. Koppatz HE, Harju JI, Sirén JE, Mentula PJ, Scheinin TM, Sallinen VJ (2019) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07266-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Patrzyk M, Klee M, Stefaniak T, Heidecke CD, Beyer K (2018) Randomized study of the influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging using a novel 3D head-mounted display (HMS-3000MT) on performance of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 32(11):4624–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Milone M, Manigrasso M, Vertaldi S, Velotti N, Aprea G, Maione F (2019) Robotic versus laparoscopic approach to treat symptomatic achalasia: systematic review with meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 32(10):1–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Leon P (2017) 3D vision provides shorter operative time and more accurate intraoperative surgical performance in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair compared with 2D vision: a case-control analysis. Surg Innov 24(2):155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hart SG, Field M (2006) NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proc Human Factors Ergon Soc Annual Meet 50(9):904–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mouraviev V, Klein M, Schommer E, Thiel DD, Samavedi S, Kumar A (2016) Urology residents experience comparable workload profiles when performing live porcine nephrectomies and robotic surgery virtual reality training modules. J Robot Surg 10(1):49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yu D, Dural C, Morrow MMB, Yang L, Collins JW, Hallbeck S (2017) Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires. Surg Endosc 31(2):877–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Szeto GPY, Ho P, Ting ACW, Poon JTC, Cheng SWK, Tsang RCC (2009) Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons. J Occup Rehabil 19(2):175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210(3):306–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very thankful for Dr. Rajvir Singh for his inputs and help in statistical analysis.

Funding

No funding or grant used for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Rajinder Parshad, Shashikiran Nanjakla Jayappa, Hemanga Kumar Bhattacharjee, Suhani Suhani, Mohit Kumar Joshi, Debesh Bhoi & Lokesh Kashyap

  2. Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical-care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Debesh Bhoi & Lokesh Kashyap

Authors
  1. Rajinder Parshad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shashikiran Nanjakla Jayappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hemanga Kumar Bhattacharjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Suhani Suhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohit Kumar Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Debesh Bhoi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lokesh Kashyap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shashikiran Nanjakla Jayappa.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Rajinder Parshad, Shashikiran N Jayappa, Hemanga K Bhattacharjee, Suhani Suhani, Mohit Joshi, Debesh Bhoi and Lokesh Kashyap have declared that they have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

A formal ethical clearance was taken for this study.

Informed consent

An informed consent was taken at the time of procedure from each participant.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parshad, R., Nanjakla Jayappa, S., Bhattacharjee, H.K. et al. Comparison of three-dimensional (3D) endovision system versus ultra-high-definition 4K endovision system in minimally invasive surgical procedures: a randomized-open label pilot study. Surg Endosc 36, 1106–1116 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08377-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08377-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation