Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2019
2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of 2D and 3D visualization in minimally invasive and robotic surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- How to Balance Prognostic Factors in Controlled Phase II Trials: Stratified Permuted Block Randomization or Minimization? An Analysis of Clinical Trials in Digestive Oncology.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Pooled it
- Three-dimensionalIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized controlled study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- Is 3D faster and safer than 4K laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised-controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- Precision surgery in the era of 3D visualization, AR/VR, and 3D printing: current applications and future directions.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- A Rectal Cancer Surgery Dataset: Use of artificial intelligence to aid automation of error identification.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Deep learning prediction of error and skill in robotic prostatectomy suturing.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- A retrospective study of 3D laparoscopy and 2D laparoscopy in transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) for unilateral inguinal hernia in elderly patients.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- 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
- A single-center initial experience on laparoscopic pancreatic operation combined with hepatic arterial resection and reconstruction.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: better promote postoperative sexual and urinary function of a propensity-matched study.American journal of cancer research · 2022Article
- 4K versus 3D total laparoscopic hysterectomy by resident in training: a prospective randomised trial.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2021Article
- 2DWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Article
- Intelligent Algorithm-Based Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radical Gastrectomy under Laparoscope.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Association of Surgical Skill Assessment With Clinical Outcomes in Cancer Surgery.JAMA surgery · 2020Article
- Identification of the surgical indication line for the Denonvilliers' fascia and its anatomy in patients with rectal cancer.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2020Article
- Three-dimensional versus conventional two-dimensional laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: A 3-year follow-up study.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).
methodsA multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load.
results88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14-21, range 2-49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17-21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16-19), p = 0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p = 0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms.
conclusionFeasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.
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.