SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020
Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy: What is the evidence?Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Review
- Study on augmented reality for robotic surgery bedside assistants.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the comparative outcomes of three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources and bibliographic reference lists and applied a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits. Procedure time, Calot's triangle dissection time, gallbladder removal time, gallbladder perforation, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, conversion to open and intraoperative errors were the evaluated outcome parameters.
resultsWe identified 6 randomised controlled trials (RCT) reporting a total of 577 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy using 3D (n = 282) or 2D (n = 295) imaging. The 3D imaging was associated with significantly shorter procedure time (MD - 4.23, 95% CI - 8.14 to - 0.32, p = 0.03), Calot's triangle dissection time (MD - 4.19, 95% CI - 6.52 to - 1.86, p = 0.0004) and significantly lower risk of gallbladder perforation (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.88, p = 0.02) compared to the 2D approach. No significant difference was found in gallbladder removal time (MD - 0.79, 95% CI - 2.24 to 0.66, p = 0.28), intraoperative bleeding (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68-1.90, p = 0.61), postoperative complications (RD - 0.01, 95% CI - 0.06 to 0.05, p = 0.85), conversion to open (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.03, p = 0.70) or intraoperative errors (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79-1.17, p = 0.70) between the two groups.
conclusionsAlthough our findings suggest that the use of 3D imaging during laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be associated with significantly shorter procedure time, Calot's triangle dissection time and gallbladder injury compared to the 2D imaging, the differences seem to be clinically insignificant. Moreover, both approaches carry s similar risk of postoperative morbidities. The impact of the surgeon's level of experience and difficulty of the procedure on the outcomes of each imaging modality remains unknown.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32572555What 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.