Ko Jennifer K Y, Li Raymond H W, Cheung Vincent Y T
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Mar-Apr;22(3):421-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.11.007. Epub 2014 Nov 21.
To compare the proficiency and preference of physicians in performing standard tasks in a box trainer using 2-dimensional (2D) versus 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy.
Prospective randomized controlled trial.
Prospective, randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).
Tertiary care teaching hospital.
Thirty physicians from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Participants were randomly assigned to perform a set of 3 to 4 tasks in a pelvic trainer using 2D laparoscopy first and then 3D laparoscopy, and vice versa.
The time taken to complete the tasks and side effects experienced were noted. Participants were asked to complete a modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) form at the end of their tasks to evaluate their experiences and to assess their own proficiency with both visual modalities.
The time taken for peg transfer, duct cannulation, and suturing was significantly faster using 3D laparoscopy compared with 2D laparoscopy. There were no significant differences in the time taken for pattern cutting with both visual modalities. Participants experienced more dizziness using 3D laparoscopy (6.9% vs 37.9%; p = .004). The GOALS self-evaluation score was significantly higher for 3D compared with 2D laparoscopy. After the study, 11 of 29 (37.9%) participants preferred 2D, 16 of 29 (55.2%) preferred 3D, and 1 of 29 (8.3%) had no preference.
Although 3D laparoscopy scored higher on self-evaluation and was preferred by more participants, it only gave better objective performance in the completion of some selected tasks by participants with intermediate skill levels and was associated with more dizziness. Further studies are needed to determine the value of 3D laparoscopy, especially when used in the clinical setting.
比较医生使用二维（2D）与三维（3D）腹腔镜在箱式训练器中执行标准任务的熟练程度和偏好。
前瞻性随机对照试验。
前瞻性随机对照试验（加拿大工作组分类I）。
三级护理教学医院。
妇产科的30名医生。
参与者被随机分配，先使用2D腹腔镜在盆腔训练器中执行一组3至4项任务，然后使用3D腹腔镜，反之亦然。
记录完成任务所需的时间以及经历的副作用。参与者在任务结束时被要求填写一份修改后的腹腔镜技能全球手术评估（GOALS）表格，以评估他们的体验，并评估他们在两种视觉模式下的熟练程度。
与2D腹腔镜相比，使用3D腹腔镜进行钉转移、导管插管和缝合所需的时间明显更快。两种视觉模式下进行图案切割所需的时间没有显著差异。使用3D腹腔镜时，参与者出现头晕的情况更多（6.9%对37.9%；p = 0.004）。与2D腹腔镜相比，3D腹腔镜的GOALS自我评估得分明显更高。研究结束后，29名参与者中有11名（37.9%）更喜欢2D，29名中有16名（55.2%）更喜欢3D，29名中有1名（8.3%）没有偏好。
尽管3D腹腔镜在自我评估中得分更高，且更受参与者青睐，但它仅在中等技能水平的参与者完成某些选定任务时表现出更好的客观性能，并且与更多的头晕相关。需要进一步研究以确定3D腹腔镜的价值，尤其是在临床环境中使用时。
