Evaluation of The Three-Dimensional Endoscopy in Basic and Extended Nasal Procedures: A Clinical and Cadaveric Study.

Introduction The three-dimensional (3D) endoscope is considered a new surgical tool used in different approaches in intranasal and anterior skull base surgical procedures. There are many advantages of 3D over two-dimensional (2D) endoscopy that have been demonstrated in clinical applications, surgical training, and different experimental studies. Objective To show the difference between using the 3D and 2D endoscopes during endonasal and anterior skull base surgery and its importance. Methods Our study is divided into two phases (clinical and cadaveric phases). In the clinical study we, have performed 52 endonasal and anterior skull base surgical procedures (26 study cases and 26 control cases). We recorded accuracy, duration, and intraoperative complication for each case. The cadaveric study was performed on three cadavers. Differences in accuracy and dissection time were recorded using 3D and 2D endoscopy for each side chosen by randomization. Results In the clinical study, the cases done by 3D endoscope were significantly faster and more accurate with less intraoperative complications compared with cases done using 2D endoscope. In cadaveric dissection, while using 3D endoscope, there was better depth of perception regarding the anatomical landmarks compared with 2D endoscope. Conclusion Three-dimensional endoscopy is an advanced instrument that allows better training for the coming generation of ear, nose, and throat surgeons. Both clinical and cadaveric studies offer a promising outcome in both endonasal and anterior skull base surgery.

Breadth and Depth: Three-Dimensional Endoscopic Field of View: Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Endoscopic Field of View.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy is an emerging tool in ear-nose-throat (ENT) and skull base surgery with the benefit of providing real-time depth perception. Several investigators have reported that the field of view (FOV) is reduced in 3D endoscopes compared with regular 2-dimensional (2D) endoscopes. Thus, we objectively compared the FOV of 2D and 3D endoscopes. METHODS: Using a standard 2D and 2 different 3D ENT endoscopes, images were captured of 1-mm graph paper from a set distance of 6 cm. The FOV was calculated from these images and compared among the endoscopes. RESULTS: The VisionSense 3D endoscope had a slightly smaller FOV (9.1 cm vs. 10.1 cm; -9.9%), and the Karl Storz 3D endoscope showed a slightly larger FOV (10.4 cm vs. 10.1 cm; +3.0%). However, the results were complicated by the different-shaped images produced by the 3D endoscopes. CONCLUSION: The differences in the FOV between the 2D and 3D endoscopes used in ENT surgery were not clinically significant. Thus, the FOV should not be considered a limitation of 3D technology.

Evaluation of The Three-Dimensional Endoscopy in Basic and Extended Nasal Procedures: A Clinical and Cadaveric Study

Abstract Introduction The three-dimensional (3D) endoscope is considered a new surgical tool used in different approaches in intranasal and anterior skull base surgical procedures. There are many advantages of 3D over two-dimensional (2D) endoscopy that have been demonstrated in clinical applications, surgical training, and different experimental studies. Objective To show the difference between using the 3D and 2D endoscopes during endonasal and anterior skull base surgery and its importance. Methods Our study is divided into two phases (clinical and cadaveric phases). In the clinical study we, have performed 52 endonasal and anterior skull base surgical procedures (26 study cases and 26 control cases). We recorded accuracy, duration, and intraoperative complication for each case. The cadaveric study was performed on three cadavers. Differences in accuracy and dissection time were recorded using 3D and 2D endoscopy for each side chosen by randomization. Results In the clinical study, the cases done by 3D endoscope were significantly faster and more accurate with less intraoperative complications compared with cases done using 2D endoscope. In cadaveric dissection, while using 3D endoscope, there was better depth of perception regarding the anatomical landmarks compared with 2D endoscope. Conclusion Three-dimensional endoscopy is an advanced instrument that allows better training for the coming generation of ear, nose, and throat surgeons. Both clinical and cadaveric studies offer a promising outcome in both endonasal and anterior skull base surgery.