Surgical implications of 3D vs 2D endoscopic ear surgery: a case-control study.

PURPOSE

To compare 3D to 2D technology in endoscopic ear surgery (EES); to report surgeons' feedback on the use of 3D in EES; to describe the operative setting for 3D EES.

METHODS

A case-control study on EES was performed at a tertiary university center. All consecutive cases of 3D EES (case group) were matched to a control group operated with the standard 2D technique. Data on surgical approach, type of surgery, operative time, outcomes, and complications were compared between the two groups. After each surgery, the operating surgeons were asked to give a feedback on the use of 3D endoscopy, filling in a questionnaire based on 5-point Likert scales.

RESULTS

None of the 3D procedures was switched to 2D. Nor intraoperative or long-term complications were recorded. The operative time was similar in both groups. Postoperative hearing function did not show any statistically significant difference between 3 and 2D patients. Ninety-six percent of participants agreed or strongly agreed on better views of anatomy and pathology with the 3D technique. Discomfort induced by 3D vision was rarely reported.

CONCLUSION

Surgical and functional results from EES respectively performed with 3D and 2D systems are overall similar, suggesting that both techniques are safe and effective. According to the surgeons' feedback, 3D provides better depth perception and improved view of anatomy and pathology. Several surgeons are willing to use the 3D system for future EES. To guarantee the best 3D EES experience, the setting in the operating room plays a crucial role.