Background: Several three-dimensional video-endoscopic systems have been introduced to enhance depth perception during minimum-access surgery. However, there is no conclusive evidence of benefit, and these systems are more expensive than conventional two-dimensional systems. We undertook a prospective randomised comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease.
Methods: The operations were done by four specialist registrars as part of their higher surgical training. 60 operations were randomised for execution by either two-dimensional or three-dimensional imaging display (30 by each method). The degree of difficulty of the operation was graded by a consultant surgeon on a standard grading system. The primary endpoints were execution time and the errors made during the procedure. The secondary endpoints were subjective assessment of the image quality and adverse effects on the surgeon.
Findings: There was no difference between the two-dimensional and three-dimensional display groups in median execution time (3160 [IQR 2735-4335 vs 3100 [2379-3710] s; p = 0.2) or error rate (six vs six). Surgeons reported adverse symptoms immediately after the operations with both systems. The scores for visual strain, headache, and facial discomfort were higher with the three-dimensional system.
Interpretation: With the current technology, three-dimensional systems based on sequential imaging show no advantage over two-dimensional systems in the conduct of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.