Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Randomized Prospective Study Comparing Acquisition of Laparoscopic Skills in Three-Dimensional (3D) vs. Two-Dimensional (2D) Laparoscopy

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We aimed to compare the performance of novices with three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy using Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks.

Methods

Fifty-six novices with no uncorrected visual problems were randomly allocated to 2D and 3D groups. All candidates practiced FLS tasks on a box trainer until they achieved proficiency. Their performance was assessed by considering completion time, number of repetitions, and number of errors following the validated FLS proficiency criteria.

Results

Twenty-five participants in each group completed the training curriculum. The median performance time (in minutes) for the 3D group was 216, which was less than that of the 2D group of 247 min (P = 0.266). The median numbers of repetitions and errors were lower for the 3D group versus the 2D group: 108 versus 121 (P = 0.008) and 27 versus 105 (P < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

Stereoscopic vision improved accuracy in laparoscopic skills for novices, which was manifested in reduced numbers of repetitions and errors. However, it does not affect the global performance time across all tasks.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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(10):2961–2968

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Heemskerk J, Zandbergen R, Maessen JG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2006) Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg Endosc 20(5):730–733

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ohuchida K, Kenmotsu H, Yamamoto A, Sawada K, Hayami T, Morooka K et al (2009) The effect of CyberDome, a novel 3-dimensional dome-shaped display system, on laparoscopic procedures. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 4(2):125–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. LaGrange CA, Clark CJ, Gerber EW, Strup SE (2008) Evaluation of three laparoscopic modalities: robotics versus three-dimensional vision laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy. J Endourol 22(3):511–516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhayani SB, Andriole GL (2005) Three-dimensional (3D) vision: does it improve laparoscopic skills? an assessment of a 3D head-mounted visualization system. Rev Urol 7(4):211–214

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith R, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M, Jourdan I (2012) Advanced stereoscopic projection technology significantly improves novice performance of minimally invasive surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26(6):1522–1527

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Lederman AB, McClusky DA 3rd, Smith CD (2005) Video-assisted surgery represents more than a loss of three-dimensional vision. Am J Surg 189(1):76–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kobayashi E, Ando T, Yamashita H, Sakuma I, Fukuyo T, Ando K et al (2009) A high-resolution, three-dimensional thin endoscope for fetal surgery. Surg Endosc 23(11):2450–2453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Roach VA, Brandt MG, Moore CC, Wilson TD (2012) Is three-dimensional videography the cutting edge of surgical skill acquisition? Anat Sci Educ 5(3):138–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Held RT, Hui TT (2011) A guide to stereoscopic 3D displays in medicine. Acad Radiol 18(8):1035–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kong SH, Oh BM, Yoon H, Ahn H, Lee HJ, Chung S et al (2010) Comparison of two- and three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic performance: a novel 3D system with one camera. Surg Endosc 24(5):1132–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Radermacher K, Fischer S, Rau G (1998) 3D-Visualisation in surgery. Helmholtz-Institut for Biomedical Engineering, Aachen University of Technology, Aachen, Germany, p 6

    Google Scholar 

  13. Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A (2012) 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 26(5):1454–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Patel HR, Ribal MJ, Arya M, Nauth-Misir R, Joseph JV (2007) Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three-dimensional visualization? a validated assessment. Urology 70(1):47–49

    Article  PubMed  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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mistry M, Roach VA, Wilson TD (2013) Application of stereoscopic visualization on surgical skill acquisition in novices. J Surg Educ 70(5):563–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 22(9):865–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M, Sigman HH, Barkun JS, Meakins JL (1998) Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 175(6):482–487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program (2011) http://www.flsprogram.org

  21. Scott DJ, Ritter EM, Tesfay ST, Pimentel EA, Nagji A, Fried GM (2008) Certification pass rate of 100 % for fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skills after proficiency-based training. Surg Endosc 22(8):1887–1893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Rassweiler J, Knoll T (2012) 3D-laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex-vivo laparoscopic tasks. J Endourol 26(8):1085–1088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sinha R, Sundaram M, Raje S, Rao G, Sinha M, Sinha R (2013) 3D laparoscopy: technique and initial experience in 451 cases. Gynecol Surg 10(2):123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Department of Upper GI Surgery, Barts and Royal London Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    B. Alaraimi & B. Patel

  2. Teaching Centre, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK

    B. Alaraimi, W. El Bakbak, S. Makkiyah, A. Al-Marzouq, R. Goriparthi, A. Bouhelal, V. Quan & B. Patel

  3. Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    S. Sarker

Authors
  1. B. Alaraimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. El Bakbak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Sarker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Makkiyah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Al-Marzouq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Goriparthi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Bouhelal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. V. Quan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. B. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Alaraimi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alaraimi, B., El Bakbak, W., Sarker, S. et al. A Randomized Prospective Study Comparing Acquisition of Laparoscopic Skills in Three-Dimensional (3D) vs. Two-Dimensional (2D) Laparoscopy. World J Surg 38, 2746–2752 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2674-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2674-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation