Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38911624›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2024

Surgeon Preference and Clinical Outcome of 3D Vision Compared to 2D Vision in Laparoscopic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Rawin Amiri, Maurice J W Zwart, Leia R Jones, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Harrie P Beerlage, Mark I van Berge Henegouwen, Wytze W Lameris, Willem A Bemelman, Marc G Besselink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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

9 authors.

Rawin AmiriFrom the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maurice J W ZwartFrom the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Leia R JonesFrom the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mohammad Abu HilalDepartment of Surgery, Istituto Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
Harrie P BeerlageCancer Center Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mark I van Berge HenegouwenFrom the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Wytze W LamerisFrom the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Willem A BemelmanFrom the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Marc G BesselinkFrom the Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To assess the added value of 3-dimensional (3D) vision, including high definition (HD) technology, in laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgeon preference and clinical outcome. Background: The use of 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery has been suggested to improve surgical performance. However, the added value of 3D vision remains unclear as a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 3D vision including HD technology in laparoscopic surgery is currently lacking. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines with a literature search up to May 2023 using PubMed and Embase (PROSPERO, CRD42021290426). We included RCTs comparing 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) vision in laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was operative time. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model to estimate the pooled effect size expressed in standard mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The level of evidence and quality was assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Overall, 25 RCTs with 3003 patients were included. Operative time was reduced by 3D vision (-8.0%; SMD, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06; Conclusions: Across 25 RCTs, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated shorter operative time with 3D vision in laparoscopic surgery, without differences in other outcomes. The majority of surgeons participating in the RCTs reported in favor of 3D vision.

Indexed as

3D visionlaparoscopic surgeryminimally invasive surgeryoperative time

Identifiers

PMID38911624
PMCPMC11191999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.