{"title":"一项比较3D和2D腹腔镜子宫切除术临床结果的随机对照试验","authors":"T. Song, D. Kang","doi":"10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction There have been a few clinical studies on the use of three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy with different results. Aim To compare the surgical outcomes of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. Material and methods In this double-blind trial, 68 patients were randomly assigned to either the 3D or 2D groups at a 1 : 1 ratio. The only difference between the two groups was the laparoscopic vision system used. The primary outcome was operative blood loss and operative time. The other surgical outcomes including failure of the intended surgery, length of hospital stay, and operative complications were also assessed. Results The baseline characteristics did not statistically significantly differ between the groups. The mean operative blood loss was not significantly different between the 3D group (74.4 ±51.6 ml) and the 2D group (79.2 ±55.4 ml) (p = 0.743). The operative time was similar in both groups (84.5 ±20.5 min vs. 87.8 ±24.4 min, p = 0.452). Moreover, no differences were observed between the groups in other surgical outcomes. Conclusions The 3D imaging system had no surgical advantage in laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. However, 3D laparoscopy did not have any negative effects on surgical outcomes and did not increase the surgical risk.","PeriodicalId":49361,"journal":{"name":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","volume":"17 1","pages":"127 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A randomized, controlled trial comparing the clinical outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic hysterectomy\",\"authors\":\"T. Song, D. Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction There have been a few clinical studies on the use of three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy with different results. Aim To compare the surgical outcomes of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. Material and methods In this double-blind trial, 68 patients were randomly assigned to either the 3D or 2D groups at a 1 : 1 ratio. The only difference between the two groups was the laparoscopic vision system used. The primary outcome was operative blood loss and operative time. The other surgical outcomes including failure of the intended surgery, length of hospital stay, and operative complications were also assessed. Results The baseline characteristics did not statistically significantly differ between the groups. The mean operative blood loss was not significantly different between the 3D group (74.4 ±51.6 ml) and the 2D group (79.2 ±55.4 ml) (p = 0.743). The operative time was similar in both groups (84.5 ±20.5 min vs. 87.8 ±24.4 min, p = 0.452). Moreover, no differences were observed between the groups in other surgical outcomes. Conclusions The 3D imaging system had no surgical advantage in laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. However, 3D laparoscopy did not have any negative effects on surgical outcomes and did not increase the surgical risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"127 - 133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2021.105724","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A randomized, controlled trial comparing the clinical outcomes of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic hysterectomy
Introduction There have been a few clinical studies on the use of three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy with different results. Aim To compare the surgical outcomes of 3D versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. Material and methods In this double-blind trial, 68 patients were randomly assigned to either the 3D or 2D groups at a 1 : 1 ratio. The only difference between the two groups was the laparoscopic vision system used. The primary outcome was operative blood loss and operative time. The other surgical outcomes including failure of the intended surgery, length of hospital stay, and operative complications were also assessed. Results The baseline characteristics did not statistically significantly differ between the groups. The mean operative blood loss was not significantly different between the 3D group (74.4 ±51.6 ml) and the 2D group (79.2 ±55.4 ml) (p = 0.743). The operative time was similar in both groups (84.5 ±20.5 min vs. 87.8 ±24.4 min, p = 0.452). Moreover, no differences were observed between the groups in other surgical outcomes. Conclusions The 3D imaging system had no surgical advantage in laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign or premalignant gynecologic diseases. However, 3D laparoscopy did not have any negative effects on surgical outcomes and did not increase the surgical risk.
期刊介绍:
Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques serves as a forum for exchange of multidisciplinary experiences in fields such as: surgery, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, neurosurgery, ENT surgery, cardiac surgery, anaesthesiology and radiology, as well as other branches of medicine dealing with miniinvasive techniques.