2D vs. 3D imaging in laparoscopic surgery-results of a prospective randomized trial

3D imaging is an upcoming technology in laparoscopic surgery, and recent studies have shown that the modern 3D technique is superior in an experimental setting. However, the first randomized controlled clinical trial in this context dates back to 1998 and showed no significant difference between 2D and 3D visualization using the first 3D generation technique, which is now more than 15 years old.

Positive results measured in an experimental setting considering 3D imaging on surgical performance led us to initiate a randomized controlled pragmatic clinical trial to validate our findings in daily clinical routine. Standard laparoscopic operations (cholecystectomy, appendectomy) were preoperatively randomized to a 2D or 3D imaging system. We used a surgical comfort scale (Likert scale) and the Raw NASA Workload TLX for the subjective assessment of 2D and 3D imaging; the duration of surgery was also measured.

The results of 3D imaging were statistically significant better than 2D imaging concerning the parameters "own felt safety" and "task efficiency"; the difficulty level of the procedures in the 2D and 3D groups did not differ. Overall, the Raw NASA Workload TLX showed no significance between the groups.

3D imaging could be a possible advantage in laparoscopic surgery. The results of our clinical trial show increased personal felt safety and efficiency of the surgeon using a 3D imaging system. Overall of the procedures, the findings assessed using Likert scales in terms of own felt safety and task efficiency were statistically significant for 3D imaging. The individually perceived workload assessed with the Raw NASA TLX shows no difference. Although these findings are subjective impressions of the performing surgeons without a clear benefit for 3D technology in clinical outcome, we think that these results show the capability that 3D laparoscopy can have a positive impact while performing laparoscopic procedures.