ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Comparison of 3D endoscopy and conventional 2D endoscopy in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: an ex vivo animal study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Operator Depth Vision in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Pilot Study of a New Three-dimensional Imaging System.DEN open · 2026Article
- Pelvic asymmetry in children with neuromuscular scoliosis: a computed tomography-based 3D analysis.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- Combined fluorescence lifetime and surface topographical imaging of biological tissue.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- 3D vs. 2D simulated fetoscopy for spina bifida repair: a quantitative motion analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Computational microscopy for fast widefield deep-tissue fluorescence imaging using a commercial dual-cannula probe.Optics continuum · 2022Article
- Three-dimensional light-field microendoscopy with a GRIN lens array.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Three-dimensional flexible endoscopy enables more accurate endoscopic recognition and endoscopic submucosal dissection marking for superficial gastric neoplasia: a pilot study to compare two- and three-dimensional imaging.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Three-dimensional visualization improves the endoscopic diagnosis of superficial gastric neoplasia.BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Three-Dimensional Flexible Endoscopy Can Facilitate Efficient and Reliable Endoscopic Hand Suturing: An ex-vivo Study.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesConventional endoscopy provides two-dimensional (2D) information without depth information. This study compared three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy and 2D endoscopy using an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training model to evaluate the utility of 3D endoscopy.
methodsPorcine stomach specimens (7 × 7 cm) were prepared from commercially available resected porcine stomachs and a 10-mm hypothetical lesion was marked at the center of each specimen. Specimens were individually placed in an ESD training model, and subjected to either 2D or 3D ESD. En bloc resection rate, perforation rate, incision time, dissection time, and levels of five eyestrain symptoms (fatigue, pain, blurred vision, head-heaviness, and headache; 100-mm visual analog scale) were compared between the 2D and 3D procedures. In a crossover design, 8 endoscopists each performed two 2D and two 3D procedures.
resultsAll 32 lesions were resected en block, but perforation occurred in one 2D procedure. Incision time was significantly shorter in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD (102.8 ± 42.1 s vs. 135.8 ± 65.7 s, p < 0.05). Dissection time was also significantly shorter in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD (366.3 ± 187.6 s vs. 517.8 ± 282.3 s, p < 0.05). Differences in levels of all symptoms except blurred vision between before and after ESD were larger in 3D ESD than in 2D ESD.
conclusionsIncision time and dissection time were significantly shorter in 3D ESD compared with 2D ESD, but eyestrain was increased. Depth information from 3D images appears to facilitate rapid and stable ESD maneuvers.
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.