Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jan 17. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-06630-9. [Epub ahead of print]

2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Author information

1
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Level 10, Praed Street, London, UK. nathancurtis@doctors.org.uk.
2
Department of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK. nathancurtis@doctors.org.uk.
3
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Southwick Hill Road, Cosham, UK.
4
Academic Surgical Unit, Level C, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK.
5
Department of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
6
Colorectal Surgery, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, UK.
7
The Minimal Access Therapy Training Unit, University of Surrey, Daphne Jackson Road, Guildford, UK.
8
Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK.
9
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Level 10, Praed Street, London, UK.
10
Faculty of Science, University of Bath, Wessex House 3.22, Bath, UK.

Abstract

AIMS:

The role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS:

A multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load.

RESULTS:

88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14-21, range 2-49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17-21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16-19), p = 0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p = 0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms.

CONCLUSION:

Feasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.

KEYWORDS:

3D; Laparoscopic; Rectal cancer; Three-dimensional; Total mesorectal excision; Trial

PMID:
30656453
DOI:
10.1007/s00464-018-06630-9

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center