Performance of three-dimensional and ultra-high-definition (4K) technology in laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background:The technology in the field of laparoscopy is rapidly evolving and is primarily focussed on increasing the quality of image and depth perception in the form of 4K and three-dimensional (3D) technology. There has been no conclusion yet regarding the better technology.Methods:A systematic search was performed independently by two authors across MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Embase using the PRISMA guidelines. All randomised control trials comparing 3D and 4K technologies were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects statistics for time taken for different tasks across the studies.Results:The search strategy revealed a total of 1835 articles, out of which nine studies were included. Three studies showed no superiority of 3D over 4K, while the remaining six did. Meta-analysis for the time taken for peg transfer favoured 3D over 4K (overall effect: Z = 2.12; P = 0.03). Forest plots for time taken for suturing (Z = 1.3; P = 0.19) and knot tying (Z = 1.7; P = 0.09) also favoured 3D over 4K; the results however were statistically insignificant. Path length was reported by two studies and was found to be lesser in the 3D group. Two studies measured the workload by NASA/Surg-TLX score, which was lower in the 3D group. Visual side effects were found to be higher in the 3D group.Conclusion:3D technology is likely to result in a shorter operative time and better efficiency of movement as compared to the 4K technology by the virtue of its better depth perception.