Comparison of surgical outcomes between 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional laparoscopy of ovarian cyst (LOOC): a randomised controlled trial.

The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes and efficacy of 3-dimensional (3D) versus 2-dimensional (2D) imaging systems for the treatment of ovarian cyst. A total of 46 patients undergoing a laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy were randomly assigned to either the 3D or 2D laparoscopy group. The primary outcome measure was the operative blood loss. The secondary outcome measure was visually induced motion sickness (VIMS), task efficacy during laparoscopy, and postoperative complication. There were no differences in baseline demographics between the two groups. The operative blood loss was significantly smaller in the 3D groups (28.7 ± 11.6 mL) than in the 2D groups (46.5 ± 24.4 mL) (p = .012). VIMS score was significantly higher in the 3D groups than the 2D groups (p < .001). 3D laparoscopy was superior to 2D in terms of the task efficacy of ovarian cyst enucleation (p < .001), adhesiolysis or dissection (p < .001), and ovarian suturing (p = .008). None of the patients in both groups developed operative complications. In conclusion, a 3D imaging system showed a more favourable surgical outcome and improved task efficacy than 2D in laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. However, 3D laparoscopy tends to cause more frequent VIMS in surgeons.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Several studies examining the possible benefits and drawbacks of a 3D imaging system versus 2D in laparoscopic surgery have brought about conflicting results. However, there have been few studies comparing the surgical outcomes of 3D and 2D laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy.What do the results of this study add? 3D laparoscopy showed favourable surgical outcomes and improved task efficacy than 2D laparoscopy in ovarian cystectomy.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? More complex procedures, such as suturing and adhesiolysis, might be easier to perform with 3D laparoscopy than with 2D laparoscopy. Therefore, further large studies of 3D gynaecologic laparoscopy with different complexities and for surgeons with different surgical skills are needed.

Incidence and severity of Visually Induced motion Sickness during 3D laparoscopy In Operators who had No experience with it (VISION).

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of visually induced motion sickness (VIMS) during 3D laparoscopy, in operators without prior experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Design: A retrospective comparative study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: A university hospital. Intervention: Gynecologic surgery. Main outcome measure: This is a prospective observational study, which enrolled 9 surgeons as participants. None of these surgeons had any prior experience with 3D laparoscopy. Each participant performed 10 consecutive cases of 3D laparoscopy in patients with benign or premalignant gynecological diseases. The primary outcome measure was the incidence and severity of VIMS, which was evaluated using the validated Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. Personal preferences, discomfort, and ease of 3D laparoscopy were also evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent of surgeons experienced VIMS during their first 3D laparoscopy case. The incidence and severity of VIMS dramatically decreased from the second case onward. However, in some surgeons (22-44%), VIMS did not completely disappear until the tenth case. With respect to the discomfort using 3D laparoscopy, 84 self-reported responses after each surgery were "favor 3D laparoscopy," and "no" in 61 (72.6%) and 47 (55.9%) participants, respectively. Most participants found it easier to perform 3D laparoscopy than 2D laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of visually induced symptoms in susceptible individuals during 3D laparoscopy is high, particularly during their first case. This suggests the need for increasing surgeons' awareness regarding the possibility of discomfort.

Comparison between the vascular control technique and conventional technique for reducing operative blood loss during robot-assisted myomectomy.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and morbidity of the vascular control technique in robotic myomectomy with the conventional technique. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent robotic myomectomy using laparoscopic vascular clamps in 2017 to 2019 (the practice change cohort) were retrospectively comparted with 32 case-matched consecutive patients who underwent the conventional robotic myomectomy (the historical cohort). The primary outcome was the operative blood loss and hemoglobin change. RESULTS: The two cohorts had similar baseline characteristics. The mean operative blood loss and hemoglobin changes were lower in the practice change cohort than in the historical cohort (P < .001 and P = .005, respectively). Other postoperative outcomes were similar between two cohorts. CONCLUSION: The vascular control technique in robotic myomectomy appears to be effective and safe in the management of selective patients with symptomatic myomas.