RESUMO
PURPOSE: The current standard endoscopic technique is a high resolution visualisation up to Full HD and even 4 K. A recent development are 3D endoscopes providing a 3-dimensional picture, which supposedly gives additional information of depth, anatomical details and orientation in the surgical field. Since the 3D-endoscopic technique is new, little scientific evidence is known whether the new technique provides advantages for the surgeon compared to the 2D-endoscopic standard technique in FESS. This study compares the standard 2D-endoscopic surgical technique with the new commercially available 3D-endoscopic technique. METHODS: The prospective randomized interventional multicenter study included a total of 80 referred patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with and without polyps without prior surgery. A bilateral FESS procedure was performed, one side with the 2D-endoscopic technique, the other side with the 3D-endoscopic technique. The time of duration was measured. Additionally, a questionnaire containing 20 items was completed by 4 different surgeons judging subjective impression of visualisation and handling. RESULTS: 2D imaging was superior to 3D apart from "recognition of details", "depth perception" and "3D effect". For usability properties 2D was superior to 3D apart from "weight of endoscopes". Mean duration for surgery was 26.1 min for 2D and 27.4 min. for 3D without statistical significance (P = 0.219). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional endoscopy features improved depth perception and recognition of anatomic details but worse overall picture quality. It is useful for teaching purposes, yet 2D techniques provide a better outcome in terms of feasibility for routine endoscopic approaches.