Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy in urology: A randomized study

INTRODUCTION Conventional two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy systems have the drawback of poor depth perception and spatial orientation. Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic systems have stereoscopic vision in which depth perception is achieved by different unique images received by each eye. We evaluated 3D laparoscopy in comparison with conventional 2D laparoscopy in urological procedures in a prospective randomized study. MATERIALS AND METHODS Over a 19 month study period, 108 patients scheduled to undergo various urological procedures were randomized to either conventional 2D or 3D laparoscopy (2D n = 53; 3D n = 55). A single senior surgeon performed all the surgeries. Parameters such as total operative time, dissection and suturing time, blood loss, hospital stay, complications (Clavien-Dindo), and visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain were assessed. The subjective assessment of the operating surgeon of superiority and inferiority of either technology on parameters defining surgical skills was recorded using a Likert scale. RESULTS The total operative time (P < 0.0003), blood loss (P < 0.028), dissection, suturing and stenting time (P < 0.0001), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Adults score (P < 0.0001) was significantly in favor of 3D laparoscopy. CONCLUSION Our study showed significant advantages of the 3D system over 2D laparoscopy. These advantages include enhanced operative performance and greater surgeon comfort.