Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

3-D-Laparoskopie vs. 2‑D‑Laparoskopie

Eine aktuelle Bewertung

3 D laparoscopy versus 2 D laparoscopy

An up to date evaluation

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Ziel der Arbeit

Über die 3‑D-Laparoskopie wird aktuell intensiv diskutiert. Im Augenblick beinhaltet ein Großteil der neu gekauften Laparoskopiesysteme die 3‑D-Technik. Neue 4K-Systeme, die demnächst in Kombination mit 3‑D angeboten werden, machen die Entscheidung für die Beschaffung eines neuen Laparoskopiesystems noch komplexer. Ziel der Arbeit ist es, Vorteile und mögliche Limitationen der 3‑D-Laparoskopie aufzuzeigen. Des Weiteren wird die Stellung der 3‑D-Laparoskopie auf dem aktuellen Videomarkt bewertet.

Material und Methoden

Grundlage war eine aktuelle Literaturrecherche in PubMed. Bezüglich der Frage, ob die 3‑D- die 2‑D-Laparoskopie ablöst, sind Beobachtungen der Industrie und persönliche Bewertungen in die Analyse mit eingeflossen.

Ergebnisse

Die aktuellen Studien zeigen eindeutige Vorteile für die 3‑D-Laparoskopie bezüglich Operationszeit, Effizienz und „workload“. Ein größerer Teil der Studien wurde an Simulationstrainern durchgeführt. Einige klinische Studien bestätigen jedoch diese Ergebnisse. Die Lernkurven in der laparoskopischen Chirurgie werden durch die 3‑D-Technik deutlich verbessert. 3‑D scheint jedoch auch sinnvoll für von Experten durchgeführte Operationen. Limitierend ist, dass nicht alle Operateure 3‑D sehen können. Des Weiteren muss das Set-up im Operationssaal optimiert werden, um das 3‑D-System erfolgreich zusammen mit dem Operationspersonal zu implementieren und Nebenwirkungen wie Ermüdung, Schwindel oder Kopfschmerzen zu vermeiden.

Diskussion

Somit wird die Wahl des Videosystems auch von den persönlichen Interessen des Operateurs und der Fähigkeit, überhaupt 3‑D sehen zu können, abhängen. Es ist anzunehmen, dass ein Großteil der Systeme 3‑D-Laparoskopie beinhalten wird, die 2‑D-Laparoskopie jedoch nicht komplett abgelöst wird. Eine dynamische Entwicklung von 3‑D in Zusammenhang mit 4K und Robotik ist zu erwarten.

Abstract

Background

The 3D laparoscopy is currently under intensive discussion. At the moment the majority of newly acquired laparoscopy systems include the 3D technique. New 4K systems, which will be offered in combination with 3D, are complicating the decision-making when buying new laparoscopic systems. The aim of the article is to show the advantages and possible limitations of 3D laparoscopy. Furthermore, the position of 3D laparoscopy in the current video market is evaluated.

Material and methods

This study was based on an up to date literature search in PubMed. Concerning the question whether the 3D is replacing the 2D laparoscopy, observations from the industry and a personal evaluation were included in the analysis.

Results

The current studies show clear advantages of 3D laparoscopy concerning operation time, efficiency and workload. A major proportion of the studies were conducted on simulation trainers; however, some clinical trials also confirmed these results. The learning curve in laparoscopic surgery is clearly improved with the 3D technique and 3D also seems be useful for operations by experts. The limitation is that not every surgeon can see three dimensionally. Furthermore, the set-up in the operation room needs to be optimized so that a 3D system can be successfully implemented with the nursing staff and side effects, such as exhaustion, dizziness or headache can be prevented.

Conclusion

The choice of video system will depend on the personal interest of the surgeon and the ability to see 3D. It can be assumed that the majority of the systems will include 3D laparoscopy but 2D laparoscopy will not be completely replaced. A dynamic development of 3D in association with 4K and robotics can be expected.

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

Literatur

  1. Alaraimi B, El Bakbak W, Sarker S et al (2014) A randomized prospective study comparing acquisition of laparoscopic skills in three-dimensional (3D) vs. two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy. World J Surg 38(11):2746–2752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2674-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bilgen K, Ustun M, Karakahya M et al (2013) Comparison of 3D imaging and 2D imaging for performance time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23:180–183. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182827e17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buia A, Stockhausen F, Filmann N, Hanisch E (2017) 2D vs. 3D imaging in laparoscopic surgery – results of a prospective randomized trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402:1241–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-017-1629-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buia A, Stockhausen F, Filmann N, Hanisch E (2017) 3D vs. 2D imaging in laparoscopic surgery – an advantage? Results of standardised black box training in laparoscopic surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402:167–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1526-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Currò G, Cogliandolo A, Bartolotta M, Navarra G (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:213–217. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2015.0557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Folaranmi SE, Partridge RW, Brennan PM, Hennessey IAM (2016) Does a 3D image improve laparoscopic motor skills? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:671–673. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (2012) Fundamentals of Laparoscopic surgery – technical skills proficiency-based training curriculum. www.flsprogram.org (1-5). Zugegriffen: 10.6.2018

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harada H, Kanaji S, Hasegawa H et al (2018) The effect on surgical skills of expert surgeons using 3D/HD and 2D/4K resolution monitors in laparoscopic phantom tasks. Surg Endosc:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6169-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harrysson IJ, Cook J, Sirimanna P et al (2014) Systematic review of learning curves for minimally invasive abdominal surgery: a review of the methodology of data collection, depiction of outcomes, and statistical analysis. Ann Surg 260:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000000596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hart SG (2006) Nasa-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 50:904–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1986) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. NASA-Ames Res. Cent, Moffett Field, California

    Google Scholar 

  12. Howarth PA (2011) Potential hazards of viewing 3‑D stereoscopic television, cinema and computer games: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31:111–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00822.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Komaei I, Navarra G, Currò G (2017) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: a systematic review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27:790–794. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kowalewski KF, Garrow CR, Proctor T et al (2018) LapTrain: multi-modality training curriculum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy – results of a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6110-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nehrenz H (2016) Intraoperative 3D-Bildgebung: Help oder Hype? https://healthcare-in-europe.com/de/story/16841-in. Zugegriffen: 10.6.2018

    Google Scholar 

  16. Özsoy M, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I et al (2015) Novice surgeons: do they benefit from 3D laparoscopy? Lasers Med Sci 30:1325–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1739-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sakata S, Grove PM, Hill A et al (2016) The viewpoint-specific failure of modern 3D displays in laparoscopic surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1495-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sakata S, Grove PM, Hill A et al (2017) Impact of simulated three-dimensional perception on precision of depth judgements, technical performance and perceived workload in laparoscopy. Br J Surg 104:1097–1106. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Schoenthaler M, Schnell D, Wilhelm K et al (2015) Stereoscopic (3D) versus monoscopic (2D) laparoscopy: comparative study of performance using advanced HD optical systems in a surgical simulator model. World J Urol 34(4):471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1660-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shakir F, Jan H, Kent A (2016) 3D straight-stick laparoscopy versus 3D robotics for task performance in novice surgeons: a randomised crossover trial. Surg Endosc 30:5380–5387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4893-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith R, Schwab K, Day A et al (2014) Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg 101:1453–1459. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sørensen SMD, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2017) 3D vision accelerates laparoscopic proficiency and skills are transferable to 2D conditions: a randomized trial. Am J Surg 214:63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sørensen SMD, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2016) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4189-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG et al (2012) 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Velayutham V, Fuks D, Nomi T et al (2015) 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4174-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vettoretto N, Foglia E, Ferrario L et al (2018) Why laparoscopists may opt for three-dimensional view: a summary of the full HTA report on 3D versus 2D laparoscopy by S.I.C.E. (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie). Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 32:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-6006-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A et al (2012) Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 26:2961–2968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2295-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3487-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Woods AJ (2012) Crosstalk in stereoscopic displays: a review. J Electron Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JEI.21.4.040902

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Thoraxchirurgie, Asklepios Kliniken Langen, Röntgenstr. 20, 63225, Langen, Deutschland

    A. Buia

  2. Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, St. Josefs-Hospital Wiesbaden, Beethovenstraße 20, 65189, Wiesbaden, Deutschland

    S. Farkas MBA

Authors
  1. A. Buia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Farkas MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Farkas MBA.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

A. Buia und S. Farkas geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buia, A., Farkas, S. 3-D-Laparoskopie vs. 2‑D‑Laparoskopie. Chirurg 89, 777–784 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-018-0693-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-018-0693-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation