Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31312963›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2020

3D laparoscopy does not reduce operative duration or errors in day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

Katie E Schwab, Nathan J Curtis, Martin B Whyte, Ralph V Smith, Timothy A Rockall, Karen Ballard, Iain C Jourdan

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01930344 (Does Three-Dimensional Laparoscopy Provide Significant Advantages for Patients and Surgeons? A Randomised Controlled Trial Investigating Operating Time and Surgical Errors With 3D vs 2D Visual Systems in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies.), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01930344 nacompletednot on this map

Does Three-Dimensional Laparoscopy Provide Significant Advantages for Patients and Surgeons? A Randomised Controlled Trial Investigating Operating Time and Surgical Errors With 3D vs 2D Visual Systems in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRoyal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation TrustRan2013 to 2014Enrolled114ConditionsGall Bladder DiseaseArms3D Laparoscopic visual system, 2D Laparoscopic visual system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Katie E SchwabMinimal Access Therapy Training Unit, University of Surrey, Daphne Jackson Road, Guildford, UK. katschwab@doctors.org.uk.
Nathan J CurtisDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Praed Street, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5655-6823
Martin B WhyteUniversity of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Ralph V SmithMinimal Access Therapy Training Unit, University of Surrey, Daphne Jackson Road, Guildford, UK.
Timothy A RockallMinimal Access Therapy Training Unit, University of Surrey, Daphne Jackson Road, Guildford, UK.
Karen BallardUniversity of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Iain C JourdanDepartment of General Surgery, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContemporary 3D platforms have overcome past deficiencies. Available trainee and laboratory studies suggest stereoscopic imaging improves performance but there is little clinical data or studies assessing specialists. We aimed to determine whether stereoscopic (3D) laparoscopic systems reduce operative time and number of intraoperative errors during specialist-performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

methodsA parallel arm (1:1) randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D passive-polarised laparoscopic systems in day-case LC using was performed. Eleven consultant surgeons that had each performed > 200 LC (including > 10 3D LC) participated. Cases were video recorded and a four-point difficulty grade applied. The primary outcome was overall operative time. Subtask time and the number of intraoperative consequential errors as identified by two blinded assessors using a hierarchical task analysis and the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique formed secondary endpoints.

results112 patients were randomised. There was no difference in operative time between 2D and 3D LC (23:14 min (± 10:52) vs. 20:17 (± 9:10), absolute difference - 14.6%, p = 0.148) although 3D surgery was significantly quicker in difficulty grade 3 and 4 cases (30:23 min (± 9:24), vs. 18:02 (± 7:56), p < 0.001). No differences in overall error count was seen (total 47, median 1, range 0-4 vs. 45, 1, 0-3, p = 0.62) although there were significantly fewer 3D gallbladder perforations (15 vs. 6, p = 0.034).

conclusion3D laparoscopy did not reduce overall operative time or error frequency in laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed by specialist surgeons. 3D reduced Calot's dissection time and operative time in complex cases as well as the incidence of iatrogenic gallbladder perforation (NCT01930344).

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult3DCholecystectomyGallbladderLaparoscopicThree-dimensionalTrial

Identifiers

PMID31312963
PMCPMC7093411

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.