ArticleSurgery today2017
Quantitative evaluation of 3D imaging in laparoscopic surgery.
Article in Surgery today, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized controlled study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- 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
- A novel device designed to improve the operability of energy devices with foot pedals in endoscopic surgery: the Foot-Site Monitor.Surgery today · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose3D images offer true depth perception, which overcomes one of the disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery. We evaluated differences in the use of 3D and 2D images in laparoscopic surgery based on the recording of traces of forceps.
methodsTwelve surgeons at our hospital participated in the study. The task consisted of one suture and three ligations, using a training box. The completion time and number of hold errors were noted, and forceps traces were recorded using the Behavior Checker system (Miura Medical). Participants were divided into two groups based on faster and slower completion times with 2D images.
resultsThe median completion time in seconds (s) was significantly shorter when using 3D images than when using 2D images (51 s, range 34-146 vs. 63 s, range 38-265 s; p = 0.013). The 3D/2D completion time ratio was significantly higher in the faster 2D group (0.93 vs. 0.69, p = 0.030) indicating a greater effect of the 3D images on less experienced participants.
conclusionsA quantitative evaluation showed that using 3D images enables more efficient use of laparoscopic forceps than 2D images. A system with 3D images is of particular benefit for inexperienced surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27757546What 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.