Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Three-Dimensional Versus Two-Dimensional Video-Assisted Endoscopic Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Data

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

Abstract

Background

There have been no studies to systematically evaluate the two display (3D vs. 2D) systems regarding both laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgeries in clinical settings; thus, we conducted one to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different visualization systems (two-dimensional and three-dimensional) during endoscopic surgery (laparoscopy or thoracoscopy) in clinical settings.

Methods

A comprehensive search of online databases was performed. Perioperative outcomes were synthesized. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the temporal trend of pooled outcomes. Specific subgroups (laparoscopy vs. thoracoscopy, prospective vs. retrospective study, malignant vs. benign diseases) were examined. Meta-regression was conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity.

Results

Twenty-three articles were considered in this analysis, of which 7 were thoracoscopic and 16 were laparoscopic surgeries. A total of 2930 patients were recorded, of which 1367 underwent 3D video-assisted surgery and 1563 underwent 2D display. Overall, significantly shorter operating time (SMD −0.69; p = <0.001), less blood loss (SMD −0.26; p = 0.028) and shorter hospital stays (SMD −0.16; p = 0.016) were found in the 3D display group. Meanwhile, the perioperative morbidity (OR 0.92; p = 0.487), retrieved lymph nodes (SMD 0.09; p = 0.081), drainage duration (SMD −0.15; p = 0.105) and drainage volume (SMD 0.00; p = 0.994) were similar between the two groups. Comparison of the overall outcomes in each subset showed consistency in all groups.

Conclusions

This up-to-date meta-analysis reveals that the 3D display system is superior to the 2D system in clinical settings with significantly shorter operating time, less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. These findings suggest that, in laparoscopic or thoracoscopic surgeries, 3D endoscopic system is preferable when condition permits. Future efforts should be made on decreasing the side effects of 3D display and increasing its cost-effectiveness.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sakata S, Watson MO, Grove PM, Stevenson AR (2016) The conflicting evidence of three-dimensional displays in laparoscopy: a review of systems old and new. Ann Surg 263(2):234–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chan AC, Chung SC, Yim AP, Lau JY, Ng EK, Li AK (1997) Comparison of two-dimensional vs three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 11(5):438–440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Taffinder N, Smith SG, Huber J, Russell RC, Darzi A (1999) The effect of a second-generation 3D endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 13(11):1087–1092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ozsoy M, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, Panagopoulos V, Vasilas M, Sakellaropoulos GC, Liatsikos E (2015) Novice surgeons: do they benefit from 3D laparoscopy? Lasers Med Sci 30(4):1325–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fergo C, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, 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 

  7. Knobloch K, Yoon U, Vogt PM (2011) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. J Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg Off Publ Eur Assoc Cranio-Maxillo-Fac Surg 39(2):91–92

    Google Scholar 

  8. Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K (2014) The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag 3(3):123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Seagroatt V, Stratton I (1998) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Test had 10% false positive rate. BMJ 316(7129):470 (author reply 470-471)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Jiao P, Wu QJ, Sun YG, Ma C, Tian WX, Yu HB, Tong HF (2017) Comparative study of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic two-port lobectomy. Thorac Cancer 8(1):3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yang CL, Wang W, Mo LL, Zhang L, Peng GL, Yu ZW, Liu YY, He JX (2016) Short-term outcome of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional video-assisted thoracic surgery for benign pulmonary diseases. Ann Thorac Surg 101(4):1297–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dong S, Yang XN, Zhong WZ, Nie Q, Liao RQ, Lin JT, Wu YL (2016) Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional visualization in video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Thorac Cancer 7(5):530–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yang C, Mo L, Ma Y, Peng G, Ren Y, Wang W, Liu Y, He J (2015) A comparative analysis of lung cancer patients treated with lobectomy via three-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus two-dimensional resection. J Thorac Dis 7(10):1798–1805

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Li Z, Li JP, Qin X, Xu BB, Han YD, Liu SD, Zhu WZ, Peng MZ, Lin Q (2015) Three-dimensional vs two-dimensional video assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 21(37):10675–10682

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hou Y, Guo W, Yang Z, Zhao J (2015) Comparative study of 3D thoracoscopic esophagectomy versus 2D thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi = Chin J Gastrointest Surg 18(9):889–892

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bagan P, De Dominicis F, Hernigou J, Dakhil B, Zaimi R, Pricopi C, Le Pimpec Barthes F, Berna P (2015) Complete thoracoscopic lobectomy for cancer: comparative study of three-dimensional high-definition with two-dimensional high-definition video systems dagger. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 20(6):820–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Padin EM, Santos RS, Fernandez SG, Jimenez AB, Fernandez SE, Dacosta EC, Duran AR, Artime Rial M, Dominguez Sanchez I (2017) Impact of three-dimensional laparoscopy in a bariatric surgery program: influence in the learning curve. Obes Surg 27:2552–2556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lu J, Zheng CH, Zheng HL, Li P, Xie JW, Wang JB, Lin JX, Chen QY, Cao LL, Lin M et al (2017) Randomized, controlled trial comparing clinical outcomes of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an interim report. Surg Endosc 31(7):2939–2945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanaji S, Suzuki S, Harada H, Nishi M, Yamamoto M, Matsuda T, Oshikiri T, Nakamura T, Fujino Y, Tominaga M et al (2017) Comparison of two- and three-dimensional display for performance of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402(3):493–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ji F, Fang X, Fei B (2017) Comparative study of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgery for gastrointestinal tumors. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi = Chin J Gastrointest Surg 20(5):509–513

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zeng N, Fang C, Yang J, Xiang N, Zhu W, Liu J, Chen Q, Liang H, Huang W (2016) Application of three-dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for complicated gallstone disease. Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = J South Med Univ 36(1):145–147

    Google Scholar 

  25. Velayutham V, Fuks D, Nomi T, Kawaguchi Y, Gayet B (2016) 3D visualization reduces operating time when compared to high-definition 2D in laparoscopic liver resection: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 30(1):147–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tao K, Liu X, Deng M, Shi W, Gao J (2016) Three-dimensional against 2-dimensional laparoscopic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 26(4):324–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tang FJ, Qi L, Jiang HC, Tong SY, Li Y (2016) Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of 3D and 2D imaging systems for laparoscopic radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection. J Int Med Res 44(3):613–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ruan Y, Wang XH, Wang K, Zhao YY, Xia SJ, Xu DL (2016) Clinical evaluation and technical features of three-dimensional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with selective segmental artery clamping. World J Urol 34(5):679–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Komatsuda A, Matsumoto K, Miyajima A, Kaneko G, Mizuno R, Kikuchi E, Oya M (2016) Technical improvement using a three-dimensional video system for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev APJCP 17(5):2475–2478

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ji G, Qi S, Ji F, Tao Y, Ma C, Fang X (2016) Comparative study of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy in short-term efficacy. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi = Chin J Gastrointest Surg 19(5):545–548

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abou-Haidar H, Al-Qaoud T, Jednak R, Brzezinski A, El-Sherbiny M, Capolicchio JP (2016) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Initial experience with 3D vision laparoscopy and articulating shears. J Pediatr Urol 12(6):426.e421–426.e425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bove P, Iacovelli V, Celestino F, De Carlo F, Vespasiani G, Finazzi Agro E (2015) 3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in organ-confined prostate cancer: comparison of operative data and pentafecta rates: a single cohort study. BMC Urol 15:12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zou Z, Huang Z, Li Q, Chen F, Zhao D, Wang M (2014) A comparative study of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic subtotal thyroidectomy via a breast approach. Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = J South Med Univ 34(8):1233–1234

    Google Scholar 

  34. Xu W, Li H, Ji Z, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Xiao H, Liu G (2014) Comparison of three dimensional and two dimentional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Zhonghua wai ke za zhi = Chin J Surg 52(10):771–774

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Aykan S, Singhal P, Nguyen DP, Yigit A, Tuken M, Yakut E, Colakerol A, Sulejman S, Semercioz A (2014) Perioperative, pathologic, and early continence outcomes comparing three-dimensional and two-dimensional display systems for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy–a retrospective, single-surgeon study. J Endourol 28(5):539–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sorensen SM, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(1):11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kyriazis I, Ozsoy M, Kallidonis P, Vasilas M, Panagopoulos V, Liatsikos E (2015) Integrating three-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: the learning curve of an expert. J Endourol 29(6):657–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilhelm D, Reiser S, Kohn N, Witte M, Leiner U, Muhlbach L, Ruschin D, Reiner W, Feussner H (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  Google Scholar 

  39. Sorensen SMD, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2017) 3D vision accelerates laparoscopic proficiency and skills are transferable to 2D conditions: a randomized trial. Am J Surg 214(1):63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shao W, Yin W, Wang W, Zhang X, Peng G, Chen X, Mo L, He J (2016) Glasses-free three-dimensional endoscopic bronchoplasty, arterioplasty, and angioplasty of the superior vena cava for the radical treatment of right middle upper lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 8(3):608–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liang H, Liang W, Zhao L, Chen D, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Tang S, He J (2017) Robotic versus video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, Plana MN (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252(2):254–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. H-R L and Z-C L contributed to the data acquisition. H-R L, W-H L, Y-H C and Z-C L contributed to the analysis and writing of the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript. We thank Lindsey Hamblin for assistance with the language revision.

Funding

This work was supported by the following funding: Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China (Grant Numbers: 2007B031515017; 2008A030201024); Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou, China (Grant Numbers: 2007Z1-E0111; 2007Z3-E0261); and Guangzhou Health and Medical Collaborative Innovative Major Special Projects (Grant No. 201400000001-2)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510120, China

    Hengrui Liang, Wenhua Liang, Wei Wang, Jiaxi He, Yuan Zeng, Weizhe Huang & Jianxing He

  2. Nanshan School, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 511436, China

    Hengrui Liang, Zhichao Liu, Manting Wang & Yuehan Chen

  3. The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Functional Experiment Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 511436, China

    Zhao Lei

  4. State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, Guangzhou, 510120, China

    Jianxing He

  5. National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, 510120, China

    Jianxing He

Authors
  1. Hengrui Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenhua Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhao Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhichao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jiaxi He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuan Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Weizhe Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Manting Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yuehan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jianxing He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Written on behalf of AME Lung Cancer Cooperative Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianxing He.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liang, H., Liang, W., Lei, Z. et al. Three-Dimensional Versus Two-Dimensional Video-Assisted Endoscopic Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Data. World J Surg 42, 3658–3668 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4681-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4681-z

Search

Navigation