SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2019
Comparison of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy: What is the evidence?Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Review
- Construction and application of a low-cost laparoscopy training simulator as a teaching tool through motor coordination and two-dimensional vision practices.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThree-dimensional (3D) vision technology has recently been validated for the improvement of surgical skills in a simulated setting. This study assessed the current evidence regarding the efficiency and potential advantages of 3D compared with two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer.
methodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) assessing the two approaches.
resultsFour trials including a total 331 cases were identified. The positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were significantly lower for the 3D group (P = 0.02). The operative time was significantly shorter in the 3D group than in the 2D group (P < 0.00001). There was less estimated blood loss (EBL) in the 3D group than in the 2D group (P = 0.02). Perioperative complication rates, conversion rate, harvested lymph nodes, first flatus, length of stay, pneumonia, wound infection, ileus, anastomotic fistula and urinary retention did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionsIn summary, 3D laparoscopic rectal surgery appears to have advantages over 2D laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of positive CRM and operation time; however, it is not better than 2D laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of the conversion rate and postoperative complications.
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.