Comparative study of 2-D and bichanneled 3-D laparoscopic images: Is there a difference?

INTRODUCTION

Lack of depth perception and spatial orientation are drawbacks of laparoscopic surgery. The advent of the 3-D camera system enables surgeons to regain binocular vision. The aim of this study was to gain subjective and objective data to determine whether 3-D systems are superior to 2-D systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our study consisted of two parts: a laparoscopic training model and an actual operation assessment. In the first part, we compared two groups of surgeon (specialists and trainees) performing a laparoscopic task using a 2-D and a 3-D camera system. In the second part, surgeons were assessed on their performance of standard laparoscopic cholecystectomies using the two different camera systems. At the end of each assessment, participants were required to complete a questionnaire on their impressions of the comparative ease of operation tasks under 2-D and 3-D vision.

RESULT

In the laboratory training model, trainees' performance time was shorter with the 3-D camera system than with the 2-D camera, but no difference was observed in the specialists group. In the surgical (cholecystectomy) assessment, no significant difference was observed between the 2-D and 3-D camera systems in terms of operative time and precision. The questionnaire indicated that all participants did not significantly favor the 3-D system.

CONCLUSION

We believe that the 3-D camera system can allow young surgeons to perform standard laparoscopic tasks safely and quickly, so as to accelerate the learning curve. However, new-generation 3-D systems will be essential to overcome surgeons' discomfort.