Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy was developed to overcome the main limitations of traditional laparoscopy. The aim of our study was to compare operative, functional and oncological results of 3D and two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Materials and methods:

A total of 102 consecutive patients with clinically localised prostate cancer underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups, 2D high definition (HD) camera (50 patients) for the first and 3D HD camera (52 patients) for the second group. Total operative time, anastomosis time, blood loss, complications and pentafecta rates for both groups were compared. All patients had at least one year of follow-up.

Results:

Total operative time was, respectively, 143 ± 17 and 118 ± 15 minutes, with a mean anastomosis time of 31± 12 and 23 ± 12 minutes. Mean blood loss was 230 ± 30 ml with 2D vision and 175 ± 40 with 3D vision. Pentafecta was reached, respectively, by 46% and 50% of patients at 3 months and 60% and 67.3% at 12 months. 3D vision offers an increased speed if compared with traditional vision (P=0.02). Pentafecta results were significantly better in the 3D group (P=0.03).

Conclusion:

We believe that 3D laparoscopy offers important advantages for surgeons and patients; its use should be encouraged.

Level of evidence:

Keywords

Pentafecta prostate cancer radical prostatectomy three-dimensional laparoscopy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schuessler

Schulam

Clayman

et al . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial case report. J Urol 1992; 147: 246A.

Guillonneau, Cathelineau

Barret

et al . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 1999; 36: 14–20.

Ficarra

Novara

Artibani

et al . Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1037–1063.

Rocco

Gregori

Stener

et al . Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 996–1003.

Heidenreich

Bastian

Bellmunt

et al . EAU Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent – update 2013. Eur Assoc Urol 2014; 65: 124–137.

Zapała

Piotrowicz

Wołyniec

et al . Interobserver variability of Clavien–Dindo scoring in urology. Int J Urol 2014; 21: 1274–1278.

Kyriazis

Özsoy

Kallidonis

et al . Integrating three-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: the learning curve of an expert. J Endourol 2015; 29: 657–670.

Lusch

Bucur

Menhadji

et al . Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol 2014; 28: 261–266.

Cicione

Autorino

Breda

et al . Three-dimensional vs standard laparoscopy: comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology 2013; 82: 1444–1450.

10.

Ashraf

Collins

Whelan

et al . Three-dimensional (3D) simulation versus two-dimensional (2D) enhances surgical skills acquisition in standardised laparoscopic tasks: a before and after study. Int J Surg 2015; 14: 12–16.

11.

Wagner

Hagen

Kurmann

et al . Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 2961–2968.

12.

De Carlo Celestino

Verri

et al . Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes: a systematic review. Urol Int 2014; 93: 373–383.

13.

Good

Stewart

Stolzenburg

et al . Analysis of the pentafecta learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2014; 32: 1225–1233.

14.

Benelli

Varca

Simonato

et al . Pentafecta rates of three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: our experience after 150 cases. Urologia 2017; 84: 93–97.

15.

Manferrari

Brunocilla

Baccos

et al . Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 10 years of experience at a single institution. Anticancer Res 2014; 34: 2443–2448.

16.

Bove

Iacovelli

Celestino

et al . 3D vs 2D Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in organ-confined prostate cancer: comparison of operative data and pentafecta rates: a single cohort study. BMC Urol 2015; 15: 12.

17.

Aykan

Singhal

Nguyen

et al . 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: 539–543.

18.

Kinoshita

Nakagawa

Usui

et al . High-definition resolution three-dimensional imaging systems in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: randomized comparative study with high-definition resolution two-dimensional systems. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 2203–2209.

3D versus 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ confined prostate cancer: Our experience