Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional visualization in video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy

Song Dong, Xue-Ning Yang, Wen-Zhao Zhong, Qiang Nie, Ri-Qiang Liao, Jun-Tao Lin, Yi-Long Wu, Song Dong, Xue-Ning Yang, Wen-Zhao Zhong, Qiang Nie, Ri-Qiang Liao, Jun-Tao Lin, Yi-Long Wu

Abstract

Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy has emerged as a safe and effective technique for treating early-stage lung cancer. Novel three-dimensional, high-definition (3D HD) imaging has removed this technical obstacle and is increasingly used in laparoscopic surgery. We compared our initial experience of 3D HD VATS with standard two-dimensional (2D) HD VATS to identify the advantages and disadvantages of 3D HD visualization in VATS.

Methods: The data of consecutive patients diagnosed with lung cancer who underwent 2D or 3D thoracoscopic lobectomy or bilobectomy at the Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute from July 2013 to October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Operation duration, estimated blood loss, length of postoperative stay, major complications, and mortality were recorded for each patient.

Results: In total, 359 patients were enrolled in the study. Lobectomy was performed in 339 patients and bilobectomy in 20; the 3D HD system was used for 178 of the 359 patients, and the 2D HD system for 181. Tumor size, distribution of the resected lobes, and the demographic characteristics of the patients were matched between the two groups. The mean operative time for 3D VATS was 163 minutes (range 60-330), whereas 2D VATS required 184 minutes (range 75-360; P < 0.001). The volume of blood loss was 109 and 144 mL in the 3D and 2D VATS groups, respectively (P = 0.064).

Conclusions: The new-generation 3D HD imaging system is feasible and safe for thoracic lobectomy. The 3D system required a shorter operative duration.

Keywords: Lobectomy; three-dimensional; video-assisted thoracic surgery.

© 2016 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Incisions for right upper thoracoscopic lobectomy. (a) procedure incision (with a lap‐protector) in the fourth intercostal space in the anterior axillary line. (b) A 1 cm trocar for the endoscopic instrument in the fifth intercostal space in the posterior‐axillary line.

References

    1. Dziedzic D, Orlowski T. The role of VATS in lung cancer surgery: Current status and prospects for development. Minim Invasive Surg 2015; 2015: 938430.
    1. Lee PC, Nasar A, Port JL et al. Long‐term survival after lobectomy for non‐small cell lung cancer by video‐assisted thoracic surgery versus thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 951–60.
    1. Wilhelm D, Reiser S, Kohn N et al. Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: Even well‐experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2387–97.
    1. Chan AC, Chung SC, Yim AP, Lau JY, Ng EK, Li AK. Comparison of two‐dimensional vs three‐dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 1997; 11: 438–40.
    1. McDougall EM, Soble JJ, Wolf JS Jr, Nakada SY, Elashry OM, Clayman RV. Comparison of three‐dimensional and two‐dimensional laparoscopic video systems. J Endourol 1996; 10: 371–4.
    1. Dion YM, Gaillard F. Visual integration of data and basic motor skills under laparoscopy. Influence of 2‐D and 3‐D video‐camera systems. Surg Endosc 1997; 11: 995–1000.
    1. Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A. 3D HD versus 2D HD: Surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1454–60.
    1. Cicione A, Autorino R, Breda A et al. Three‐dimensional vs standard laparoscopy: Comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology 2013; 82: 1444–50.
    1. Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, Horgan S, Candinas D, Vorburger SA. Three‐dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 2961–8.
    1. Honeck P, Wendt‐Nordahl G, Rassweiler J, Knoll T. Three‐dimensional laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex‐vivo laparoscopic tasks. J Endourol 2012; 26: 1085–8.
    1. Aykan S, Singhal P, Nguyen DP et al. Perioperative, pathologic, and early continence outcomes comparing three‐dimensional and two‐dimensional display systems for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy–a retrospective, single‐surgeon study. J Endourol 2014; 28: 539–43.
    1. Velayutham V, Fuks D, Nomi T, Kawaguchi Y, Gayet B. 3D visualization reduces operating time when compared to high‐definition 2D in laparoscopic liver resection: A case‐matched study. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 147–53.
    1. Bagan P, De Dominicis F, Hernigou J et al. Complete thoracoscopic lobectomy for cancer: Comparative study of three‐dimensional high‐definition with two‐dimensional high‐definition video systems. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2015; 20: 820–3.
    1. Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD et al. Evaluation of the impact of three‐dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol 2014; 28: 261–6.
    1. McKenna RJ Jr, Houck W, Fuller CB. Video‐assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy: Experience with 1,100 cases. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81: 421–5.
    1. Onaitis MW, Petersen RP, Balderson SS et al. Thoracoscopic lobectomy is a safe and versatile procedure: Experience with 500 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 2006; 244: 420–5.
    1. Riquet M, Legras A, Mordant P et al. Number of mediastinal lymph nodes in non‐small cell lung cancer: A Gaussian curve, not a prognostic factor. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98: 224–31.
    1. Scott WJ, Allen MS, Darling G et al. Video‐assisted thoracic surgery versus open lobectomy for lung cancer: A secondary analysis of data from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139: 976–81.
    1. Sayar A, Çitak N, Büyükkale S et al. Impact of extended cervical mediastinoscopy in staging of left lung carcinoma. Thorac Cancer 2013; 4: 361–8.
    1. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 1389–402.
    1. Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, Vallières E. Early experience with robotic lung resection results in similar operative outcomes and morbidity when compared with matched video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93: 1598–604.
    1. Kent M, Wang T, Whyte R, Curran T, Flores R, Gangadharan S. Open, video‐assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: Review of a national database. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97: 236–42.
    1. Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B, Strother E, Najam F. Robot‐assisted lobectomy for early‐stage lung cancer: Report of 100 consecutive cases. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88: 380–4.
    1. Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW. Robotic assistance for video‐assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: Technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131: 54–9.
    1. Nezhat C, Lewis M, Kotikela S et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2758–60.
    1. Bodner JC, Zitt M, Ott H et al. Robotic‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) for benign and malignant esophageal tumors. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 1202–6.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe