SynthesisOncotarget2016
Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Three-dimensional Versus Two-dimensional Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obesity surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes between 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Meta-analysis and systematic review of intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug eluting stent implantation in left main coronary disease in 4592 patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Pooled it
- 3D laparoscopy does not reduce operative duration or errors in day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- Article
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy: What is the evidence?Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Review
- A role for laparoscopy in the age of robotics: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative outcomes between 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs 3DHD laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Surgical implications of 3D vs 2D endoscopic ear surgery: a case-control study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020Article
- Three-dimensional (3D) system versus two-dimensional (2D) system for laparoscopic resection of adrenal tumors: a case-control study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
- 3D video-assisted trans-oral removal of deep hilo-parenchymal sub-mandibular stones.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2019Article
- A Comparative Study of Generic Visual Components of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Images.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
- First intraoperative experience with three-dimensional (3D) high-definition (HD) nasal endoscopy for lacrimal surgeries.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2017Article
- Short term outcomes of three dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopy is a revolutionary technique in modern surgery. However, the comparative efficacy between two-dimensional laparoscopy and three-dimensional laparoscopy remains in uncertainty. Therefore we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to seek for answers.
methodsDatabases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were carefully screened. Clinical trials comparing two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy were included for pooled analysis. Observational and randomized trials were methodologically appraised by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Revised Jadad's Scale respectively. Subgroup analyses were additionally conducted to clarify the potential confounding elements. Outcome stability was examined by sensitivity analysis, and publication bias was analyzed by Begg's test and Egger's test.
results21 trials were screened out from the preliminary 3126 records. All included studies were high-quality in methodology, except for Bilgen 2013 and Ruan 2015. Three-dimensional laparoscopy was superior to two-dimensional laparoscopy in terms of surgical time (P < 0.00001), blood loss (P = 0.01), perioperative complications (P = 0.04) and hospital stay (P = 0.03). Additionally, both techniques demonstrated comparable results of secondary endpoints, including drainage volume (P = 0.74), drainage time (P = 0.26), numbers of retrieved lymphnodes (P = 0.85), hospital expenses (P = 0.49), anastomosis time in prostatectomy (P=0.15) and 6-month continence rate (P = 0.61). The pooled outcomes of primary endopoints were verified to be stable by sensitivity analysis. Although Begg's test (P = 0.215) and Egger's test (P = 0.003) revealed that there was publication bias across included studies, Trim-and-Fill method confirmed that the results remained stable.
conclusionThree-dimensional laparoscopy is a preferably surgical option against two-dimensional laparoscopy due to its better surgical efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.