SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparison of 2D and 3D visualization in minimally invasive and robotic surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of da Vinci 5 versus Xi for robotic anatomic lung resection: a propensity-weighted analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) has transformed abdominal surgery by improving recovery times and maintaining comparable outcomes to open surgery. However, the loss of three-dimensional (3D) visualization remains a limitation. Robotic platforms have facilitated the adoption of 3D systems. Despite these developments, the advantages of 3D over two-dimensional (2D) visualization in MIS and robotic surgery remain controversial.
methodsA systematic review was conducted including studies published between January 2015 and May 2024. Studies comparing 2D and 3D visualization in MIS and robotic surgery were included. Primary outcomes assessed were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, conversion and complication rates.
resultsRegarding MIS, three studies demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in blood loss favoring 3D visualization, with median reductions from 60 mL (IQR 20-60) to 20 mL (IQR 5-40) (p = 0.008). Operative time was significantly reduced in 15 studies, notably in hernia repairs, bariatric, gastric, and colorectal surgeries. Two studies reported marginally significant reductions in hospital stay. Complication rates showed isolated improvements. In robotic surgery, 14 studies showed 3D visualization enhanced task performance, with tasks completed up to 88% faster among novice surgeons.
conclusion3D visualization consistently reduces operative time in selected MIS procedures and improves robotic task performance, whereas effects on blood loss, complications, and length of stay are inconsistent. Standardized, procedure-specific trials-especially against 2D-4K-and reporting of clinical outcomes in robotic surgery are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41639416What 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.