Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical implications of 3D vs 2D endoscopic ear surgery: a case–control study

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare 3D to 2D technology in endoscopic ear surgery (EES); to report surgeons’ feedback on the use of 3D in EES; to describe the operative setting for 3D EES.

Methods

A case–control study on EES was performed at a tertiary university center. All consecutive cases of 3D EES (case group) were matched to a control group operated with the standard 2D technique. Data on surgical approach, type of surgery, operative time, outcomes, and complications were compared between the two groups. After each surgery, the operating surgeons were asked to give a feedback on the use of 3D endoscopy, filling in a questionnaire based on 5-point Likert scales.

Results

None of the 3D procedures was switched to 2D. Nor intraoperative or long-term complications were recorded. The operative time was similar in both groups. Postoperative hearing function did not show any statistically significant difference between 3 and 2D patients. Ninety-six percent of participants agreed or strongly agreed on better views of anatomy and pathology with the 3D technique. Discomfort induced by 3D vision was rarely reported.

Conclusion

Surgical and functional results from EES respectively performed with 3D and 2D systems are overall similar, suggesting that both techniques are safe and effective. According to the surgeons’ feedback, 3D provides better depth perception and improved view of anatomy and pathology. Several surgeons are willing to use the 3D system for future EES. To guarantee the best 3D EES experience, the setting in the operating room plays a crucial role.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data sets analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Marchioni D, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Pothier DD et al (2015) The round window region and contiguous areas: endoscopic anatomy and surgical implications. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(5):1103–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anschuetz L, Presutti L, Marchioni D et al (2018) Discovering middle ear anatomy by transcanal endoscopic ear surgery: a dissection manual. J Vis Exp 131:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  3. Marchioni D, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Molteni G et al (2010) Selective epitympanic dysventilation syndrome. Laryngoscope 120(5):1028–1033

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Fermi M, Bonali M et al (2018) Facial sinus endoscopic evaluation, radiologic assessment, and classification. Laryngoscope 128(10):2397–2402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Marchioni D, Molteni G, Presutti L (2011) Endoscopic anatomy of the middle ear. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 63(2):101–113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Presutti L, Anschuetz L, Rubini A et al (2018) The impact of the transcanal endoscopic approach and mastoid preservation on recurrence of primary acquired attic cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 39(4):445–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marchioni D, Rubini A, Gazzini L et al (2018) Complications in endoscopic ear surgery. Otol Neurotol 39(8):1012–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gulati S, Patel M, Emmanuel A et al (2019) The future of endoscopy: advances in endoscopic image innovations. Dig Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.13481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsunaga R, Nishizawa Y, Saito N et al (2017) Quantitative evaluation of 3D imaging in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Today 47(4):440–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rampinelli V, Doglietto F, Mattavelli D et al (2017) Two-dimensional high definition versus three-dimensional endoscopy in endonasal skull base surgery: a comparative preclinical study. World Neurosurg 105:223–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernardeschi D, Lahlou G, De Seta D et al (2018) 3D endoscopic ear surgery: a clinical pilot study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275(2):379–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen CK, Hsieh LC, Hsu TH (2018) Novel three-dimensional image system for endoscopic ear surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275(12):2933–2939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anschuetz L, Niederhauser L, Wimmer W et al (2019) Comparison of 3- vs 2-dimensional endoscopy using eye tracking and assessment of cognitive load among surgeons performing endoscopic ear surgery. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2019.1765

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang Y, Chen W, Xia S et al (2019) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic-assisted transanal pull-through for Hirschsprung’s Disease In Children: Preliminary Results Of A Prospective Cohort Study In A Tertiary Hospital. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 29(4):557–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wasserzug O, Fishman G, Wengier A et al (2018) Enhanced visualization of the surgical field in pediatric direct laryngoscopy using a three-dimensional endoscopic system. Am J Otolaryngol 39(5):628–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Delgado-Fernández J, Rivero-Garvía M, Márquez-Rivas J (2017) How I do it. 3D endoscopic treatment of metopic craniosynostosis through a single incision. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 159(11):2067–2070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ali MJ, Naik MN (2017) First intraoperative experience with three-dimensional (3D) high-definition (HD) nasal endoscopy for lacrimal surgeries. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(5):2161–2164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Albrecht T, Baumann I, Plinkert PK et al (2016) Three-dimensional endoscopic visualization in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273(11):3753–3758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dirie NI, Wang Q, Wang S (2018) Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopic systems in urology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 32(9):781–790

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheng J, Gao J, Shuai X et al (2016) Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 7(43):70979–70990

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Anschuetz L, Huwendiek S, Stricker D et al (2018) Assessment of middle ear anatomy teaching methodologies using microscopy versus endoscopy: a randomized comparative study. Anat Sci Educ 11:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cho S, Kang H (2012) An assessment of visual discomfort caused by motion-in-depth in stereoscopic 3D video. BMVC. https://doi.org/10.5244/C.26.65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nomura K, Kikuchi D, Kaise M et al (2019) Comparison of 3D endoscopy and conventional 2D endoscopy in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo animal study. Surg Endosc 33(12):2170–4164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bang JW, Heo H, Choi JS et al (2014) Assessment of eye fatigue caused by 3D displays based on multimodal measurements. Sensors (Switzerland) 14(9):16467–16485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Solimini AG, Mannocci A, Di Thiene D et al (2012) A survey of visually induced symptoms and associated factors in spectators of three dimensional stereoscopic movies. BMC Public Health 12(1):779

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilhelm D, Reiser S, Kohn N et al (2014) Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: Even well-experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D. Surg Endosc 28(8):2387–2397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Pingani L, Mariano D et al (2019) Rating surgical field quality in endoscopic ear surgery: proposal and validation of the “Modena Bleeding Score”. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276(2):383–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Anschuetz L, Bonali M, Guarino P et al (2017) Management of bleeding in exclusive endoscopic ear surgery: pilot clinical experience. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 157(4):700–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, University Hospital and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 15, 3010, Bern, Switzerland

    Giulia Molinari, Talisa Ragonesi, Sara-Lynn Hool, Georgios Mantokoudis, Marco Caversaccio & Lukas Anschuetz

  2. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy

    Giulia Molinari & Livio Presutti

Authors
  1. Giulia Molinari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Talisa Ragonesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara-Lynn Hool
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georgios Mantokoudis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Livio Presutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Caversaccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lukas Anschuetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by GM, TR, S-LH, and LA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by GM and LA, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulia Molinari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of University of Bern (Kantonale Ethikkomission Bern, KEK-BE Nr. 2019-00555).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molinari, G., Ragonesi, T., Hool, SL. et al. Surgical implications of 3D vs 2D endoscopic ear surgery: a case–control study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277, 3323–3330 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06040-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06040-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation