Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30710315›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2019

Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional high-definition laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

Hanna Koppatz, Jukka Harju, Jukka Sirén, Panu Mentula, Tom Scheinin, Ville Sallinen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02357589 (3 Versus 2 Dimensional HD Laparoscopy in Cholecystectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

NCT02357589 nacompletednot on this map

3 Versus 2 Dimensional HD Laparoscopy in Cholecystectomy: a Prospective, Single Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHelsinki University Central HospitalRan2015 to 2017Enrolled210ConditionsCholecystolithiasisArms2D laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 3D laparoscopic cholecystectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hanna KoppatzDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University of Helsinki and HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Jukka HarjuDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University of Helsinki and HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Jukka SirénDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University of Helsinki and HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Panu MentulaDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University of Helsinki and HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Tom ScheininDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University of Helsinki and HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Ville SallinenDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University of Helsinki and HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland. ville.sallinen@helsinki.fi.ORCID 0000-0001-5394-4169
University of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile 3D laparoscopy increases surgical performance under laboratory conditions, it is unclear whether it improves outcomes in real clinical scenarios. The aim of this trial was to determine whether the 3D laparoscopy can enhance surgical efficacy in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCC).

methodThis prospective randomized controlled study was conducted between February 2015 and April 2017 in a day case unit of an academic teaching hospital. Patients scheduled for elective LCC were assessed for eligibility. The exclusion criteria were: (1) planned secondary operation in addition to LCC, (2) predicted to be high-risk for conversion, and (3) surgeons with less than five previous 3D laparoscopic procedures. Patients were operated on by 12 residents and 3 attendings. The primary endpoint was operation time. All surgeons were tested for stereoaquity (Randot® stereotest). The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02357589).

resultsA total of 210 patients were randomized; 105 to 3D laparoscopy and 104 to 2D laparoscopy. Median operation time as similar in the 3D and 2D laparoscopy groups (49 min vs. 48 min, p = 0.703). Operation times were similar in subgroup analyses for surgeon's sex (male vs. female), surgeon's status (resident vs. attending), surgeon's stereovision (stereopsis 10 vs. less than 10), surgeon's experience (performed 200 LCCs or below versus over 200 LCCs), or patient's BMI (≤ 25 vs. 25-30 vs. > 30). No differences in intra- or postoperative complications were noted between the 3D and 2D groups.

conclusion3D laparoscopy did not show any advantages over 2D laparoscopy in LCC.

Indexed as

AdultAmbulatory Surgical ProceduresCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePostoperative ComplicationsProspective Studies3DGall bladderLaparoscopicLCCStereopsisVisual

Identifiers

PMID30710315
PMCPMC6795621
OpenAlexW2912267825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.