Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction · 2024
Comparison of 3D and 2D laparoscopy: Initial experience of perioperative outcomes and clinical assessment.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Li, Bu Guosen, Zhao Jing, La Xiaolin, Ma Cailing
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to compare three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy and conventional two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy in surgical performance and clinical assessment during laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy (LRHND) for treating early-stage cervical cancer.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, we included 67 consecutive patients underwent LRHND for treating early-stage cervical cancer by the experienced laparoscopic surgeons between August 2018 and December 2020. amongst these patients, 32 patients underwent 3D laparoscopy (2D group) and 35 patients underwent 2D laparoscopy (2D group). Demographic data, clinical and surgical parameters were obtained from each patient. An end-of-operation questionnaire was administered regarding subjective perception of 3D laparoscopy system.
RESULTS: Patient characteristics, including age, BMI, FIGO stage, and histology, were comparable between the two groups. Compared with 2D imaging system, 3D system significantly shortened the operation time, especially bilateral lymph node dissection time. Blood loss was lower in 3D group compared with 2D group. There were no significant differences regarding pelvic nodes retrieved, incidence of complications, hospital stay, the recovery time of bowel, abdominal drainage fluid, hospitalization costs and visual symptoms. In addition, 3D system significantly improved depth perception and precision, and reduced surgical strain and eye strain for surgeon. No statistical difference was observed in visual symptoms and adverse events between the two groups. The surgeon was more willing to accept 3D laparoscopy.
CONCLUSION: The 3D laparoscopy is safe, feasible and comfortable, with obvious advantage in depth perception, precision and surgical strain. It triggered no increase in the complications and adverse events.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, we included 67 consecutive patients underwent LRHND for treating early-stage cervical cancer by the experienced laparoscopic surgeons between August 2018 and December 2020. amongst these patients, 32 patients underwent 3D laparoscopy (2D group) and 35 patients underwent 2D laparoscopy (2D group). Demographic data, clinical and surgical parameters were obtained from each patient. An end-of-operation questionnaire was administered regarding subjective perception of 3D laparoscopy system.
RESULTS: Patient characteristics, including age, BMI, FIGO stage, and histology, were comparable between the two groups. Compared with 2D imaging system, 3D system significantly shortened the operation time, especially bilateral lymph node dissection time. Blood loss was lower in 3D group compared with 2D group. There were no significant differences regarding pelvic nodes retrieved, incidence of complications, hospital stay, the recovery time of bowel, abdominal drainage fluid, hospitalization costs and visual symptoms. In addition, 3D system significantly improved depth perception and precision, and reduced surgical strain and eye strain for surgeon. No statistical difference was observed in visual symptoms and adverse events between the two groups. The surgeon was more willing to accept 3D laparoscopy.
CONCLUSION: The 3D laparoscopy is safe, feasible and comfortable, with obvious advantage in depth perception, precision and surgical strain. It triggered no increase in the complications and adverse events.