[Comparative study of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic C1 radical hysterectomy for cervical...

Objective: To compare the clinical effects and the subjective perception of surgeons with three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic C1 radical hysterectomy surgeries for cervical cancer. Methods: The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 101 patients with cervical cancer who received C1 laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (C1-LRH) surgery from June 2015 to August 2017 were collected. Of all patients, 42 cases undergoing 3D laparoscopic surgery and 59 cases undergoing 2D laparoscopic surgery were respectively allocated into the C1-3DLRH group or C1-2DLRH group. The clinical effect and the subjective perception of surgeons were compared between the two groups. Results: (1) There was no significant difference between the C1-3DLRH group and C1-2DLRH group in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, pathologic type, etc. (all P>0.05). Compared with C1-2DLRH group, the operation time was significantly shortened [(192±54) vs (221±54) minutes, P<0.01], blood loss was significantly less [(102±88) vs (167±117) ml, P<0.01], and the success rate of inferior hypogastric plexus (IHP) bladder branch preservation was significantly increased [86% (36/42) vs 66% (39/59), P<0.05] in C1-3DLRH group. There were no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes, the incidence of operative complications, the infection rate, the time of catheterization and the length of hospitalization between the two groups (all P>0.05). The long-term bladder function was evaluated at the twelfth month after operation, 39 patients in the C1-3DLRH group and 53 patients in the C1-2DLRH group were completed the survey. The results showed that 13% (5/39) of the patients in the C1-3DLRH group had long-term bladder dysfunction, which was lower than that 21% (11/53) of the C1-2DLRH group, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (χ(2)=0.980, P=0.322). (2) A total of 251 laparoscopic surgeons questionnaires were eligible. The incidence of side effects in the first and second generation of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgeons was 20.4% (10/49), 6.9% (6/87) and 3.5% (4/115), respectively. The incidence of side effects in the first generation of 3D laparoscopic surgeons was higher than that in the second generation of 3D (χ(2)=5.463, P=0.019) and 2D laparoscopic surgeons (χ(2)=12.475, P<0.01). There was no difference between the second generation of 3D and 2D laparoscopic surgeons (χ(2)=1.208, P=0.272). Conclusions: 3D laparoscopy is advantageous to the preservation of autonomic nerve in C1-LRH operation and may improve the quality of operation compared with 2D laparoscopy. The second generation of 3D laparoscopic device might overcome the side effects of the surgeons.