Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 4164–4170 | Cite as

Comparison of 3D endoscopy and conventional 2D endoscopy in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo animal study

  • Kosuke NomuraEmail author
  • Daisuke Kikuchi
  • Mitsuru Kaise
  • Toshiro Iizuka
  • Yorinari Ochiai
  • Yugo Suzuki
  • Yumiko Fukuma
  • Masami Tanaka
  • Yosuke Okamoto
  • Satoshi Yamashita
  • Akira Matsui
  • Toshifumi Mitani
  • Shu Hoteya
Article

Abstract

Background and objectives

Conventional endoscopy provides two-dimensional (2D) information without depth information. This study compared three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy and 2D endoscopy using an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training model to evaluate the utility of 3D endoscopy.

Methods

Porcine stomach specimens (7 × 7 cm) were prepared from commercially available resected porcine stomachs and a 10-mm hypothetical lesion was marked at the center of each specimen. Specimens were individually placed in an ESD training model, and subjected to either 2D or 3D ESD. En bloc resection rate, perforation rate, incision time, dissection time, and levels of five eyestrain symptoms (fatigue, pain, blurred vision, head-heaviness, and headache; 100-mm visual analog scale) were compared between the 2D and 3D procedures. In a crossover design, 8 endoscopists each performed two 2D and two 3D procedures.

Results

All 32 lesions were resected en block, but perforation occurred in one 2D procedure. Incision time was significantly shorter in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD (102.8 ± 42.1 s vs. 135.8 ± 65.7 s, p < 0.05). Dissection time was also significantly shorter in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD (366.3 ± 187.6 s vs. 517.8 ± 282.3 s, p < 0.05). Differences in levels of all symptoms except blurred vision between before and after ESD were larger in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD.

Conclusions

Incision time and dissection time were significantly shorter in 3D ESD compared with 2D ESD, but eyestrain was increased. Depth information from 3D images appears to facilitate rapid and stable ESD maneuvers.

Keywords

Three-dimensional imaging (3D) 3D endoscope Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) Porcine stomach Eyestrain 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Kosuke Nomura, Daisuke Kikuchi, Mitsuru Kaise, Toshiro Iizuka, Yorinari Ochiai, Yugo Suzuki, Yumiko Fukuma, Masami Tanaka, Yosuke Okamoto, Satoshi Yamashita1, Akira Matsui, Toshifumi Mitani, and Shu Hoteya have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Sorensen SM, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endsc 30:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feng C, Rozenblit JW, Hamilton AJ (2010) A comuputerized assessment to compare the impact of standard, stereoscopic, and high-definition laparoscopic monitor displays on surgical technique. Surg Endosc 24:2743–2748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG, Madison KM, Sandhu GS, Varela JE, Benway BM (2012) 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22:865–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nomura K, Kaise M, Kikuchi D, Iizuka T, Fukuma Y, Kuribayashi Y, Tanaka M, Toba T, Furuhata T, Yamashita S, Matsui A, Mitani T, Hoteya S (2016) Recognition accuracy using 3D endoscopic images for superficial gastrointestinal cancer: a crossover study. Gastroenterol Res Pract.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4561468 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nomura K, Kaise M, Kikuchi D, Toshiro I, Yumiko F, Yasutaka K, Masami T, Takahito T, Tsukasa F, Satoshi Y, Akira M, Toshifumi M, Shu H (2018) Recognition accuracy of tumor extent using a prototype 3D endoscope for superficial gastric tumor: an ex vivo crossover study. Endosc Int Open 6:E652–E658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kikuchi D, Kaise M, Nomura K, Toba T, Kuribayashi Y, Tanaka M, Yamashita S, Furuhata T, Matsui A, Mitani T, Hoteya S, Iizuka T (2017) Feasibility study of the three-dimensional-flexible endoscope in endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo animal study. Digestion 95:237–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, Horgan S, Candinas D, Vorburger SA (2012) Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 26:2961–2968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feng X, Morandi A, Boehne M, Imvised T, Ure BM, Kuebler JF, Lacher M (2015) 3-Dimensional (3D) laparoscopy improves operating time in small spaces without impact on hemodynamics and psychomental stress parameters of the surgeon. Surg Endosc 29:1231–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alaraimi B, El Bakbak W, Sarker S, Makkiyah S, Al-Marzouq A, Goriparthi R, Bouhelal A, Quan V, Patel B (2014) A randomized prospective study comparing acquisition of laparoscopic skills in three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy. World J Surg 38:2746–2752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Usta TA, Ozkaynak A, Kovalak E, Ergul E, Naki MM, Kaya E (2015) An assessment of the new generation three-dimensional high definition laparoscopic vision system on surgical skills: a randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc 29:2305–2313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 351:248–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mueller MD, Camartin C, Dreher E, Hänggi W (1999) Three-dimensional laparoscopy. Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 13:469–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iwasaki T, Nagata T, Tawara A (2012) Potential preventive effects of a new visual intervention for accommodative insufficiency and asthenopia due to sustained near task. Ophthalmologica 228:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen C, Li K, Wu Q, Wang H, Qian Z, Sudlow G (2013) EEG-based detection and evaluation of fatigue caused by watching 3DTV. Displays 34:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bang JW, Heo H, Choi JS, Park KR (2014) Assessment of eye fatigue caused by 3D displays based on multimodal measurements. Sensors (Basel) 14:16467–16485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Solimini AG (2013) Are there side effects to watching 3D movies? A prospective crossover observational study on visually induced motion sickness. PLoS ONE 8:e56160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim CJ, Park S, Won MJ, Whang M, Lee EC (2013) Autonomic nervous system responses can reveal visual fatigue induced by 3D displays. Sensors 13:13054–13062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Urvoy M, Barkowsky M, Callet PL (2013) How visual fatigue and discomfort impact 3D-TV quality of experience: A comprehensive review of technological, psychophysical, and psychological factors. Ann Telecommun 68:641–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kosuke Nomura
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daisuke Kikuchi
    • 1
  • Mitsuru Kaise
    • 2
  • Toshiro Iizuka
    • 1
  • Yorinari Ochiai
    • 1
  • Yugo Suzuki
    • 1
  • Yumiko Fukuma
    • 1
  • Masami Tanaka
    • 1
  • Yosuke Okamoto
    • 1
  • Satoshi Yamashita
    • 1
  • Akira Matsui
    • 1
  • Toshifumi Mitani
    • 1
  • Shu Hoteya
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyToranomon HospitalTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Gastroenterology DivisionNippon Medical SchoolTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations