Abstract
BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the security and efficacy of 3D vs 2D laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment.MethodsForty-six patients who suffered from rectal cancer and went on laparoscopic radical resection of rectal carcinoma in Peking University Shougang Hospital from Feb. 2015 to Mar. 2016 were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups. The 23 patients operated with the 3D system were compared with 23 patients operated with the 2D system by perioperative data.ResultsThere were no significant differences in age, sex, pathological type, tumor differentiation, TNM staging, and surgical procedures (P > 0.05). The average operating time of 3D laparoscopic surgery group (172.2 ± 27.5 min) was shorter than that of 2D group (192.6 ± 22.3) (P < 0.05); the rate of transfer to laparotomy is lower in 2D group (72.7%) than in 3D group (86.4%), but they have no significant difference; and the intraoperative blood loss (247.0 ± 173.6 ml vs 282.6 ± 195.6 ml), postoperative passage of flatus (2.8 ± 0.8 days vs 3.1 ± 1.0 days), and indwelling catheter time (5.6 ± 1.9 days vs 6.3 ± 2.0 days) in 3D group and 2D group (P > 0.05) were not significantly different. There were no differences in other complications between the two groups. No significantly different recrudescence and death rates were found between the two groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionThe 3D laparoscopy shortens the operation time of rectum cancer. 3D laparoscopic surgery is more efficient in treatment of rectal cancer than 2D laparoscopy and is worth of being generalized.
Highlights
The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the security and efficacy of 3D vs 2D laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment
Since the first multicenter retrospective study was undertaken by Falk et al in 1993 [1], laparoscopy in colon and rectal surgery has been proved to have lower complication rates and perioperative morbidity, shorter operation duration and hospital stay, and less postoperative pain and hospital cost compared with open surgery [2, 3]
Surgeons work in a three-dimensional space but are guided in twodimensional (2D) images provided by laparoscopy cameras which results in losing true depth perception and lacking spatial orientation that potentially increases the risk of errors and the operative time, and
Summary
The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the security and efficacy of 3D vs 2D laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment. Surgeons work in a three-dimensional space but are guided in twodimensional (2D) images provided by laparoscopy cameras which results in losing true depth perception and lacking spatial orientation that potentially increases the risk of errors and the operative time, and. The development of three-dimensional (3D) highdefinition laparoscopy is offering the surgeons clearer depth of field and is developed as an alternative. Some studies have reported that 3D laparoscopy reduces the performance errors and operative duration [5] and improves performance for surgical novices compared with 2D laparoscopy [6,7,8]. To address the issue whether 3D system offers better security and efficacy to LRRRC, we retrospectively. Zeng et al World Journal of Surgical Oncology (2017) 15:178 analyzed two consecutive series of LRRRC performed by a single experienced surgeon with 2D and 3D systems, respectively Two-dimensional laparoscopic radical resection of rectal carcinoma (LRRRC) has been performed for years; as the 3D technology was introduced, not any study has been conducted to compare the outcomings and differences between 3D and 2D LRRRC.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
