Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2017
2D vs. 3D imaging in laparoscopic surgery-results of a prospective randomized trial.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI-based 3D models of cranial nerves in clinical care: a systematic review.European radiology experimental · 2025Pooled it
- Three-dimensional vision versus two-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance of trainee surgeons: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Phantom-based training of ultrasound-guided breast biopsy in medical education: a randomized controlled trial comparing handheld and high-end ultrasound.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- From Photogrammetry to Virtual Reality: A Framework for Assessing Visual Fidelity in Structural Inspections.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
- Utility of a three-dimensional printed pelvic model for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection.International journal of colorectal disease · 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
- 4K ultra HD technology reduces operative time and intraoperative blood loss in colorectal laparoscopic surgery.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Optimising Surgical Technique in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: a Review of Intraoperative Interventions.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- SICE national survey: current state on the adoption of laparoscopic approach to the treatment of colorectal disease in Italy.Updates in surgery · 2019Article
- Three-dimensional thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction.Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2018Review
- [3 D laparoscopy versus 2 D laparoscopy : An up to date evaluation].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose3D imaging is an upcoming technology in laparoscopic surgery, and recent studies have shown that the modern 3D technique is superior in an experimental setting. However, the first randomized controlled clinical trial in this context dates back to 1998 and showed no significant difference between 2D and 3D visualization using the first 3D generation technique, which is now more than 15 years old.
methodsPositive results measured in an experimental setting considering 3D imaging on surgical performance led us to initiate a randomized controlled pragmatic clinical trial to validate our findings in daily clinical routine. Standard laparoscopic operations (cholecystectomy, appendectomy) were preoperatively randomized to a 2D or 3D imaging system. We used a surgical comfort scale (Likert scale) and the Raw NASA Workload TLX for the subjective assessment of 2D and 3D imaging; the duration of surgery was also measured.
resultsThe results of 3D imaging were statistically significant better than 2D imaging concerning the parameters "own felt safety" and "task efficiency"; the difficulty level of the procedures in the 2D and 3D groups did not differ. Overall, the Raw NASA Workload TLX showed no significance between the groups.
conclusion3D imaging could be a possible advantage in laparoscopic surgery. The results of our clinical trial show increased personal felt safety and efficiency of the surgeon using a 3D imaging system. Overall of the procedures, the findings assessed using Likert scales in terms of own felt safety and task efficiency were statistically significant for 3D imaging. The individually perceived workload assessed with the Raw NASA TLX shows no difference. Although these findings are subjective impressions of the performing surgeons without a clear benefit for 3D technology in clinical outcome, we think that these results show the capability that 3D laparoscopy can have a positive impact while performing laparoscopic procedures.
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.