Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017; 77(01): 45-51
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-120845
GebFra Science
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

What Are the Advantages of 3D Cameras in Gynaecological Laparoscopy?

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
S. Baum
1   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, UKSH Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
2   Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Homburg/Saar, Germany
,
M. Sillem
3   Praxisklinik am Rosengarten, Mannheim, Germany
,
J. T. Ney
4   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde, Geburtshilfe und Reproduktionsmedizin, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany
,
A. Baum
5   Praxis Prof. Dr. Dhom & Partner, Ludwigshafen, Germany
,
M. Friedrich
6   Frauenklinik, HELIOS-Klinikum Krefeld, Krefeld, Germany
,
J. Radosa
2   Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Homburg/Saar, Germany
,
K. M. Kramer
7   Viszera Chirurgie-Zentrum, Munich, Germany
,
B. Gronwald
8   Zentrum für Palliativmedizin und Kinderschmerztherapie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg, Germany
,
S. Gottschling
9   Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Zentrum für Palliativmedizin und Kinderschmerztherapie, Homburg/Saar
,
E. F. Solomayer
4   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde, Geburtshilfe und Reproduktionsmedizin, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany
,
A. Rody
1   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, UKSH Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
,
R. Joukhadar
10   Universitätsfrauenklinik Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 27 April 2016
revised 22 September 2016

accepted 09 November 2016

Publication Date:
30 January 2017 (online)

Abstract

Introduction Minimally invasive operative techniques are being used increasingly in gynaecological surgery. The expansion of the laparoscopic operation spectrum is in part the result of improved imaging. This study investigates the practical advantages of using 3D cameras in routine surgical practice.

Materials and Methods Two different 3-dimensional camera systems were compared with a 2-dimensional HD system; the operating surgeonʼs experiences were documented immediately postoperatively using a questionnaire.

Results Significant advantages were reported for suturing and cutting of anatomical structures when using the 3D compared to 2D camera systems. There was only a slight advantage for coagulating. The use of 3D cameras significantly improved the general operative visibility and in particular the representation of spacial depth compared to 2-dimensional images. There was not a significant advantage for image width. Depiction of adhesions and retroperitoneal neural structures was significantly improved by the stereoscopic cameras, though this did not apply to blood vessels, ureter, uterus or ovaries.

Conclusion 3-dimensional cameras were particularly advantageous for the depiction of fine anatomical structures due to improved spacial depth representation compared to 2D systems. 3D cameras provide the operating surgeon with a monitor image that more closely resembles actual anatomy, thus simplifying laparoscopic procedures.

 
  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Dagher I, Di Giuro G, Dubrez J. et al. Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy: a comparative study. Am J Surg 2009; 198: 173-177
  • 2 Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG. et al. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (04) CD006231
  • 3 Laine S, Rantala A, Gullichsen R. et al. Laparoscopic vs. conventional Nissen fundoplication: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 1997; 11: 441-444
  • 4 Medeiros LR, Stein AT, Fachel J. et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2008; 18: 387-399
  • 5 Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (04) CD001546
  • 6 Van Bergen P, Kunert W, Buess GF. The effect of high-definition imaging on surgical task efficiency in minimally invasive surgery: an experimental comparison between three-dimensional imaging and direct vision through a stereoscopic TEM rectoscope. Surg Endosc 2000; 14: 71-74
  • 7 Wenzl R, Pateisky N, Husslein P. Erstmaliger Einsatz eines 3D-Videoendoskopes in der Gynäkologie. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 1993; 53: 776-778
  • 8 Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A. et al. Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 2012; 10: 2961-2968
  • 9 Kommu SS, Murphy D, Patel SP. Robot-assisted pyleoplasty vs. laparoscopic pyeloplasty – a preliminary cost comparison in United Kingdom setting. Proceedings of the 24th World Congress of Endourology; 2006; Cleveland, OH, USA: A224.
  • 10 Ahmed I, Paraskeva P. A clinical review of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surgeon 2011; 9: 341-351
  • 11 Xin H, Zelek J, Carnahan H. eds. Laparoscopic Surgery, perceptual Limitation and Force: a Review. First canadian Student Conference on biomedical Computing; 2006. Kingston, Ontario Canada. Online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Zelek2/publication/237774967_Laparoscopic_surgery_perceptual_limitations_and_force_A_review/links/0f31752dd5bf019665000000.pdf last access: 20.01.2014
  • 12 Szeto GP, Cheng SW, Poon JT. et al. Surgeonsʼ static posture and movement repetitions in open and laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Res 2012; 172: e19-e31
  • 13 Dakin G, Gagner M. Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endos 2003; 17: 574-579
  • 14 Bueß GF, van Bergen P, Kunert W. et al. Vergleichsstudie verschiedener 2-D- und 3-D-Sichtsysteme in der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie. Chirurg 1996; 67: 1041-1046
  • 15 Crosthwaite G, Chung T, Dunkley P. et al. Comparison of direct vision and electronic two- and three dimensional display systems on surgical task efficiency in endoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 849-851
  • 16 Peitgen K, Walz MV, Holtmann G. et al. A prospective randomized experimental evaluation of three-dimensional imaging in laparoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 262-267
  • 17 Storz P, Buess G, Kunert W. et al. 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1454-1460
  • 18 Leite M, Carvalho AF, Costa P. et al. Assessment of laparoscopic skills performance: 2D versus 3D vision and classic instrument versus new hand-held robotic device for laparoscopy. Surg Innov 2016; 23: 52-61
  • 19 Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Moorthy K. et al. Toward feasible, valid, and reliable video-based assessments of technical surgical skills in the operating room. Ann Surg 2008; 247: 372-379
  • 20 Hasson HM, Jason H. Information retention and skill acquisition after CME meetings. Laparosc Today 2007; 6: 4-6 2012; 26: 2961–2968
  • 21 Kunert W, Storz P, Kirschniak A. For 3D laparoscopy: a step towards advanced surgical navigation: how to get maximum benefit from 3D vision. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 696-699
  • 22 Alaraimi B, El Bakbak W, Sarker S. et al. A randomized prospective study comparing acquisition of laparoscopic skills in three-dimensional (3D) vs. two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy. World J Surg 2014; 38: 2746-2752
  • 23 Wilhelm D, Reiser S, Kohn N. et al. Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: even well-experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2387-2397
  • 24 Cicione A, Autorino R, Breda A. et al. Three-dimensional vs. standard laparoscopy: comperative assessment using a validated programm for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology 2013; 82: 1444-1450
  • 25 Kneist W, Huber T, Paschold M. et al. 3D virtual reality laparoscopic simulation in surgical education – results of a pilot study. Zentralbl Chir 2016; 141: 297-301
  • 26 LaGrange CA, Clark CJ, Gerber EW. et al. Evaluation of three-dimensional vision laparoscopic modalities: robotics versus three-dimensional vision laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy. J Endourol 2008; 22: 511-516
  • 27 Sun CC, Chiu AW, Chen KK. et al. Assessment of a three-dimensional operating system with skill tests in a pelvic trainer. Urol Int 2000; 64: 154-158
  • 28 Mueller M, Camartin C, Dreher E. et al. Three-dimensional laparoscopy. Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 469-472
  • 29 Smith R, Schwab K, Day A. et al. Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg 2014; 101: 1453-1459
  • 30 Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG. et al. 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012; 22: 865-870
  • 31 Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Rassweiler J. et al. Three-dimensional laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex-vivo laparoscopic tasks. J Endourol 2012; 26: 1085-1088
  • 32 Silvestri M, Simi M, Cavallotti C. et al. Autostereoscopic three-dimensional viewer evaluation through comparison with conventional interfaces in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 2011; 18: 223-230
  • 33 Feng C, Rozenblit JW, Hamilton AJ. A computerized assessment to compare the impact of standard, stereoscopic, and high-definition laparoscopic monitor displays on surgical technique. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 2743-2748
  • 34 Supe AN, Kulkarni GV, Supe PA. Ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 2010; 6: 31-36
  • 35 Shore EM, Lefebvre GG, Husslein H. et al. Designing a standardized laparoscopy curriculum for gynecology residents: a Delphi approach. J Grad Med Educ 2015; 7: 197-202
  • 36 van Bergen P, Kunert W, Bessell J. et al. Comparative study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional vision systems for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 1998; 12: 948-954
  • 37 Sahu D, Mathew MJ, Reddy PK. 3D laparoscopy – help or hype; initial experience of a tertiary health centre. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: NC01-NC03
  • 38 Falk V, Mintz D, Grünenfelder J. et al. Influence of three-dimensional vision on surgical telemanipulator performance. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 1282-1288
  • 39 Kihara K, Fujii Y, Masuda H. et al. New three-dimensional head-mounted display system, TMDU-S-3D system, for minimally invasive surgery application: procedures for gasless single-port radical nephrectomy. Int J Urol 2012; 19: 886-889
  • 40 Zdichavsky M, Schmidt A, Luithle T. et al. Three-dimensional laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in children and adults: a prospective clinical trial. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2015; 24: 154-160
  • 41 Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W. et al. Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 2003; 237: 460-469
  • 42 Chan AC, Chung SC, Yim AP. et al. Comparison of two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopy surgery. Surg Endosc 1997; 11: 438-440
  • 43 Taffinder N, Smith SG, Huber J. et al. The effect of a second-generation 3D endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 1087-1092
  • 44 Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A. Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 1998; 351: 248-251
  • 45 Votanopoulos K, Brunicardi F, Thornby J. Impact of three dimensional vision in laparoscopic training. World J Surg 2008; 32: 110-118
  • 46 Tevaearai HT, Mueller XM, Segesser LK. 3-D vision improves performance in a pelvic trainer. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 464-468
  • 47 Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD. et al. Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol 2014; 28: 261-266