Indian Journal of Urology Users online:1184  
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 33  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 226-229

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

Department of Urology, AMAI Charitable Trust's ACE Hospital and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Suresh B Patankar
Department of Urology, AMAI Charitable Trust's ACE Hospital and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/iju.IJU_418_16

Rights and Permissions

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. Post operative pain, hospital stay, and complications after surgery were similar in both groups. The subjective assessment of the operating surgeon also favored the 3D system. Conclusion: Our study showed significant advantages of the 3D system over 2D laparoscopy. These advantages include enhanced operative performance and greater surgeon comfort.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded277    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 10    

Recommend this journal