Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2021
Prospective randomized controlled study for comparison of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of 2D and 3D visualization in minimally invasive and robotic surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- 3D versus 2D laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Long-term oncological outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Trial
- Operative safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy for advanced middle-upper gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- 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
- Research progress of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2023Article
- Safety of Three-Dimensional versus Two-Dimensional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience.Korean journal of transplantation · 2022Article
- Usefulness of articulating laparoscopic instruments during laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the technological advance in resolution and stereoscopic depth, the 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic system has been widely used in real surgery. However, there have been few studies to confirm the clinical usefulness of the 3D laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG). This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between the 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D LDG for gastric cancer patients.
methodsThis was a prospective, randomized controlled, single-center, and superiority trial. This study was carried in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma which could be radically resected by LDG were randomly assigned (1:1) to the 2D or 3D group. From October 2016 to August 2018, 84 patients were included in this study and randomly assigned into the 2D group (44 patients) or the 3D group (40 patients). A total of 5 patients were excluded; 3 in the 2D group and 2 were in the 3D group. Consequently, the data from 79 patients were analyzed (2D: 41 cases; 3D: 38 cases). For the LDG procedure, 3D and 2D camera and display system were applied according to the assigned group. The primary end point was the duration of total laparoscopic operation time. Secondary end points included the amount of intraoperative blood loss (IBL), the number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative complications and open conversion rate.
resultsThere were no differences between 2 and 3D groups with respect to clinicopathologic characteristics. The total operation time in 3D groups was significantly shorter than 2D group (122 [106.5-161] versus 101 [77.75-125.5] minutes; P = 0.001). The postoperative complication rates in the 3D groups was significantly lower than 2D group (24.4% versus 7.9%, respectively; P = 0.045).
conclusion3D LDG shorten the operation time compared with 2D LDG in gastric cancer patients. And 3D laparoscopy provided the benefit of less postoperative complications.
trial registrationcris.nih.go.kr number KCT0003717.
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.