Two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernia repair: a systematic...

Two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy provides limited depth perception, which may limit performance during technically demanding operations. Three-dimensional (3D) systems offer stereoscopic vision, improving visualization. We compared 3D versus 2D systems in adults for operative time, visualization, and postoperative complications.

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched through December 2025. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies of patients undergoing TAPP repair, comparing 3D with 2D laparoscopy. Total operative time was the primary outcome; visualization and postoperative complications were secondary outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and certainty of evidence using GRADE.

Six studies met the inclusion criteria; five were included in the primary meta-analysis (n = 521 patients). Total operative time favored 3D (MD-18.48 min; 95% CI-29.27,-7.69; p = 0.0008), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=94%). Subgroup analysis also favored 3D in RCTs (MD-11.70; 95% CI-17.74,-5.66) and observational studies (MD-26.85; 95% CI-30.55,-23.15). Contrast favored 3D (MD 2.11; 95% CI 0.56, 3.67; p = 0.008), while sharpness was not statistically different (MD 1.49; 95% CI-0.25 to 3.24; p = 0.09). No difference in postoperative complications (MD 1.11; 95% CI 0.75, 1.65; p = 0.59).

3D laparoscopy has been proposed to improve visualization and shorten operative time; however this should be interpreted with caution due to very low certainty of evidence and variability in surgeon experience.

PROSPERO CRD420251272842.