Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2017
Randomized, controlled trial comparing clinical outcomes of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an interim report.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02327481 (Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Clinical Outcomes of 3D Versus 2D Laparoscopic Surgery for Gastric Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 8 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.
Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Clinical Outcomes of 3D Versus 2D Laparoscopic Surgery for Gastric Cancer
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of 2D and 3D visualization in minimally invasive and robotic surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- 3D versus 2D laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison between 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional endoscopic thyroidectomy for benign and malignant lesions: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopic gastrectomy in surgical efficacy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Pooled it
- Three-dimensional vs 2-dimensional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Systems in Urology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of endourology · 2018Pooled it
- Three-dimensionalIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Does three-dimensional surgery affect recurrence patterns in patients with gastric cancer after laparoscopic R0 gastrectomy? Results from a 3-year follow-up phase III trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- The predictive value of the preoperative C-reactive protein-albumin ratio for early recurrence and chemotherapy benefit in patients with gastric cancer after radical gastrectomy: using randomized phase III trial data.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2019Trial
- CRP/prealbumin, a novel inflammatory index for predicting recurrence after radical resection in gastric cancer patients: post hoc analysis of a randomized phase III trial.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2019Trial
- Surgeon Preference and Clinical Outcome of 3D Vision Compared to 2D Vision in Laparoscopic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Short-term comparative study of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic surgery for total extraperitoneal primary inguinal hernia repair.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2021Article
- Intelligent Algorithm-Based Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radical Gastrectomy under Laparoscope.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Does a 3D laparoscopic approach improve surgical outcome of mininvasive right colectomy? A retrospective case-control study.Updates in surgery · 2020Article
- Assessment of 3-Dimensional vs 2-Dimensional Imaging and Technical Performance Using a Multiport Intraoperative Data Capture and Analytic System for Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Article
- Laparoscopic splenic hilar lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer: to be or not to be.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Review
- Three-dimensional Stereoscopic Visualization Shortens Operative Time in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Comparison of two- and three-dimensional display for performance of laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we evaluated the short-term outcomes following three-dimensional (3D) or two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic surgery for patients with gastric cancer.
backgroundThere is a lack of prospective evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic surgery for patients with gastric cancer. Therefore, we conducted a phase III single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial to compare 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgery for patients with gastric cancer.
methodsWe compared operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissections, morbidity, and mortality between the 3D and 2D groups following laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID number NCT02327481.
resultsA total of 228 patients were randomized (3D group 115 cases; 2D group 113 cases) between January 1, 2015 and September 1, 2015. Seven patients who underwent exploratory operations were excluded. Finally, a total of 221 patients were analyzed (3D group 109 cases, 2D group 112 cases). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the clinical pathological characteristics, operating time (3D vs. 2D, 184 ± 36 vs. 178 ± 37 min, P = 0.288), number of lymph node dissections (36 ± 14 vs. 37 ± 13, P = 0.698), time to first ambulation (2.27 ± 1.60 vs. 2.04 ± 0.84, P = 0.18), flatus (3.89 ± 1.49 vs. 3.69 ± 1.12, P = 0.255), liquid diet (4.88 ± 1.88 vs. 4.79 ± 1.57, P = 0.684), or duration of postoperative hospital stay (12.52 ± 4.83 vs. 12.63 ± 7.32, P = 0.903). The postoperative complication rates of the 3D and 2D groups were 18.3 and 16.1%, respectively, P = 0.723. No patients died during the postoperative hospital stay. However, the intraoperative blood loss in the 3D group was significantly lower than the 2D group (58 ± 75 vs. 78 ± 72 ml, P = 0.047).
conclusionThere was no significant difference in operation time and number of lymph node harvested between the 3D and 2D groups; however, 3D laparoscopic surgery may reduce the intraoperative blood loss compared to 2D procedure. Therefore, we conclude that this trial is safe and is thus ongoing.
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.