4K versus 3D total laparoscopic hysterectomy by resident in training: a prospective randomised trial.


Journal

Facts, views & vision in ObGyn
ISSN: 2032-0418
Titre abrégé: Facts Views Vis Obgyn
Pays: Belgium
ID NLM: 101578773

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2021
Historique:
entrez: 23 9 2021
pubmed: 24 9 2021
medline: 24 9 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The introduction of ultra-high-definition laparoscopic cameras (4K), by providing stronger monocular depth perception, could challenge the existing 3D technology. There are few available studies on this topic, especially in gynaecological setting. Prospective, single institution, randomised clinical trial (NCT04209036). The two laparoscopes utilised were the 0°ULTRA Telescopes with 4K technology and the 0°3D-HD by Olympus. The surgeons were all trainees and in their last year of residency and who had obtained the certificate of first or second level of the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment program - GESEA program. Twenty-nine patients with benign uterine pathology were enrolled. To compare if the use three-dimensional (3D) versus ultra-high-definition laparoscopic vision system (4K) for total laparoscopic hysterectomy performed by trainees was associated with a shorter operative time. The 3D vision system did not prove to be superior to the 4K vision system. Operators reported significantly more vision-related side effects when using 3D than 4K. Completing the GESEA training program was the only factor with a positive and statistically significant impact on the overall time of the procedure, especially when greater dexterity and tissue handling were required. Neither technology used proved superior to the other, although operators showed a preference for 4K over 3D due to the lower number of visual side effects. Attendance at courses on laparoscopic simulators and training programs allowed trainees to demonstrate excellent surgical skills.

Sections du résumé

Background
The introduction of ultra-high-definition laparoscopic cameras (4K), by providing stronger monocular depth perception, could challenge the existing 3D technology. There are few available studies on this topic, especially in gynaecological setting.
Objectives
Prospective, single institution, randomised clinical trial (NCT04209036).
Materials and Methods
The two laparoscopes utilised were the 0°ULTRA Telescopes with 4K technology and the 0°3D-HD by Olympus. The surgeons were all trainees and in their last year of residency and who had obtained the certificate of first or second level of the Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment program - GESEA program. Twenty-nine patients with benign uterine pathology were enrolled.
Main outcome measures
To compare if the use three-dimensional (3D) versus ultra-high-definition laparoscopic vision system (4K) for total laparoscopic hysterectomy performed by trainees was associated with a shorter operative time.
Results
The 3D vision system did not prove to be superior to the 4K vision system. Operators reported significantly more vision-related side effects when using 3D than 4K. Completing the GESEA training program was the only factor with a positive and statistically significant impact on the overall time of the procedure, especially when greater dexterity and tissue handling were required.
Conclusions
Neither technology used proved superior to the other, although operators showed a preference for 4K over 3D due to the lower number of visual side effects. Attendance at courses on laparoscopic simulators and training programs allowed trainees to demonstrate excellent surgical skills.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34555876
doi: 10.52054/FVVO.13.3.027
pmc: PMC8823275
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04209036']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

221-229

Références

Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Apr;103(4):345-50
pubmed: 8605132
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Nov-Dec;22(6S):S38
pubmed: 27679225
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Nov;28(9):1805-1806
pubmed: 30358707
Ann Surg. 2020 Nov;272(5):709-714
pubmed: 32833763
Int J Surg. 2018 May;53:333-338
pubmed: 29656132
Minerva Med. 2019 Aug;110(4):341-357
pubmed: 31124636
Surg Endosc. 2019 Oct;33(10):3370-3383
pubmed: 30656453
J Endourol. 2018 Nov;32(11):1021-1027
pubmed: 30064256
Surg Endosc. 2020 Nov;34(11):4857-4865
pubmed: 31754852
Surg Today. 2016 Jun;46(6):668-85
pubmed: 26289837
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Jan;27(1):22-23
pubmed: 31201941
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019 Dec;41(12):718-725
pubmed: 31856291
Surg Endosc. 2020 Mar;34(3):1237-1243
pubmed: 31172324
Surg Endosc. 2020 Nov;34(11):5083-5091
pubmed: 31811456
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Mar;121(3):578-584
pubmed: 23635621
Fertil Steril. 1992 Jun;57(6):1180-5
pubmed: 1534771
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Apr;199:183-6
pubmed: 26946312
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jul-Aug;23(5):810-7
pubmed: 27046747
Surg Endosc. 2020 Apr;34(4):1729-1735
pubmed: 31321536
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Feb;174(2):654-8
pubmed: 8623802
Surg Endosc. 2019 Oct;33(10):3251-3274
pubmed: 30515610
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Oct;290(4):705-9
pubmed: 24791965
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;59(1):110-116
pubmed: 29573269
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Aug;21(8):1087-1094
pubmed: 31080087
Hum Reprod. 2002 May;17(5):1334-42
pubmed: 11980761
Hong Kong Med J. 2018 Jun;24(3):245-251
pubmed: 29848787
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1993 Nov;53(11):776-8
pubmed: 8293943
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;221(4):324.e1-324.e10
pubmed: 31082385
Surg Endosc. 2016 Nov;30(11):4889-4894
pubmed: 26944729
Ann Surg. 2016 Feb;263(2):234-9
pubmed: 26501704
BMJ. 2009 May 14;338:b1802
pubmed: 19443914
Surg Endosc. 2018 Oct;32(10):4228-4234
pubmed: 29603005
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Mar-Apr;22(3):421-7
pubmed: 25461685
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):3
pubmed: 26739150
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997 Feb;76(2):173-6
pubmed: 9049293
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;(8):CD003677
pubmed: 26264829
Springerplus. 2016 Aug 30;5(1):1445
pubmed: 27652021
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Aug 16;9(8):368-377
pubmed: 28874957
Surg Technol Int. 2018 Nov 11;33:38-43
pubmed: 30117137
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Oct;92(10):1194-201
pubmed: 24461067
J Surg Educ. 2017 Sep - Oct;74(5):867-877
pubmed: 28215494

Auteurs

Classifications MeSH