PDF herunterladen
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?

Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: 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
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

received 27. April 2016
revised 22. September 2016

accepted 09. November 2016

Publikationsdatum:
30. Januar 2017 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
  Lizenzen und Reprints

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.

Key words

laparoscopy - 3D - advantage - clinical use
 

  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Laine S, Rantala A, Gullichsen R. et al. Laparoscopic vs. conventional Nissen fundoplication: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 1997; 11: 441-444
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (04) CD001546
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Wenzl R, Pateisky N, Husslein P. Erstmaliger Einsatz eines 3D-Videoendoskopes in der Gynäkologie. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 1993; 53: 776-778
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMed
  • 10 Ahmed I, Paraskeva P. A clinical review of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surgeon 2011; 9: 341-351
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMed
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Dakin G, Gagner M. Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endos 2003; 17: 574-579
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hasson HM, Jason H. Information retention and skill acquisition after CME meetings. Laparosc Today 2007; 6: 4-6 2012; 26: 2961–2968
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Supe AN, Kulkarni GV, Supe PA. Ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 2010; 6: 31-36
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Falk V, Mintz D, Grünenfelder J. et al. Influence of three-dimensional vision on surgical telemanipulator performance. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 1282-1288
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Votanopoulos K, Brunicardi F, Thornby J. Impact of three dimensional vision in laparoscopic training. World J Surg 2008; 32: 110-118
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Tevaearai HT, Mueller XM, Segesser LK. 3-D vision improves performance in a pelvic trainer. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 464-468
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar