Comparison of three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) vision technology has recently been validated for the improvement of surgical skills in a simulated setting. This study assessed the current evidence regarding the efficiency and potential advantages of 3D compared with two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer. We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) assessing the two approaches. Four trials including a total 331 cases were identified. The positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were significantly lower for the 3D group (P\u2009=\u20090.02). The operative time was significantly shorter in the 3D group than in the 2D group (P\u2009<\u20090.00001). There was less estimated blood loss (EBL) in the 3D group than in the 2D group (P\u2009=\u20090.02). Perioperative complication rates, conversion rate, harvested lymph nodes, first flatus, length of stay, pneumonia, wound infection, ileus, anastomotic fistula and urinary retention did not differ significantly between the two groups (P\u2009>\u20090.05). In summary, 3D laparoscopic rectal surgery appears to have advantages over 2D laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of positive CRM and operation time; however, it is not better than 2D laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of the conversion rate and postoperative complications.