Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29969912›Full record

SynthesisJournal of endourology2018

Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Systems in Urology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Najib Isse Dirie, Qing Wang, Shaogang Wang

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of endourology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Monocular Variable Magnifications 3D Laparoscope System Using Double Liquid Lenses.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Najib Isse DirieDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan, P.R. China .
Qing WangDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan, P.R. China .
Shaogang WangDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan, P.R. China .
Tongji Hospital · CNHuazhong University of Science and Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopy is widely used in the urological field. This systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted to assess the clinical and surgical efficacy of the three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic system in comparison with two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy for treatment of different urological conditions.

methodsFollowing guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, a systematic literature search in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBase was carried out to identify relevant studies published up to May 2018. Articles published in the English language of both randomized and observational studies comparing 3D and 2D laparoscopic systems in urological surgeries were included. Level of evidence and quality assessments of all included studies were conducted. Interested data were extracted for comparison and meta-analysis.

resultsOur literature search generated 17 studies comparing 3D and 2D laparoscopic systems in different urological surgeries. Of these, 13 studies containing 548 and 449 patients operated on with 2D and 3D laparoscopic systems, respectively, were included for meta-analysis. These 13 studies were divided into three groups according to surgical type. Group 1: Partial nephrectomy (PN); operative time (p = 0.19), estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.51), dissecting time (p = 0.58), and suturing time (p = 0.28) were not statistically significant between 2D and 3D laparoscopic systems. However, warm ischemia time during PN was significantly shorter during 3D laparoscopy (p < 0.00001). Group 2: Pyeloplasty; this procedure showed no significant difference between the two systems. Group 3: Radical prostatectomy (RP); shorter operative time (p < 0.0001) and lower EBL (p = 0.001) were associated with the 3D laparoscopic system.

conclusionThree-dimensional laparoscopy mainly improves the depth of perception, leading to better visibility, which is important for some complex urological surgeries such as PN, pyeloplasty, and RP. Based on our findings, 3D laparoscopy seems to provide better clinical and surgical outcomes in some urological procedures compared with conventional 2D laparoscopy.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalLaparoscopyOperative TimeUrologic Surgical ProceduresWarm Ischemiacomparisonmeta-analysisthree-dimensional laparoscopytwo-dimensional laparoscopyurological surgeries

Identifiers

PMID29969912
PMCPMC6156697
OpenAlexW2810881349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.