Cargando…
2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial
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 e...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6722156/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30656453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06630-9 |
_version_ | 1783448476160360448 |
---|---|
author | Curtis, N. J. Conti, J. A. Dalton, R. Rockall, T. A. Allison, A. S. Ockrim, J. B. Jourdan, I. C. Torkington, J. Phillips, S. Allison, J. Hanna, G. B. Francis, N. K. |
author_facet | Curtis, N. J. Conti, J. A. Dalton, R. Rockall, T. A. Allison, A. S. Ockrim, J. B. Jourdan, I. C. Torkington, J. Phillips, S. Allison, J. Hanna, G. B. Francis, N. K. |
author_sort | Curtis, N. J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-018-06630-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6722156 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67221562019-09-19 2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial Curtis, N. J. Conti, J. A. Dalton, R. Rockall, T. A. Allison, A. S. Ockrim, J. B. Jourdan, I. C. Torkington, J. Phillips, S. Allison, J. Hanna, G. B. Francis, N. K. Surg Endosc Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-018-06630-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2019-01-17 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6722156/ /pubmed/30656453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06630-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Curtis, N. J. Conti, J. A. Dalton, R. Rockall, T. A. Allison, A. S. Ockrim, J. B. Jourdan, I. C. Torkington, J. Phillips, S. Allison, J. Hanna, G. B. Francis, N. K. 2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title | 2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_full | 2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | 2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | 2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_short | 2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | 2d versus 3d laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6722156/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30656453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06630-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT curtisnj 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT contija 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT daltonr 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT rockallta 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT allisonas 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT ockrimjb 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT jourdanic 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT torkingtonj 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT phillipss 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT allisonj 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT hannagb 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT francisnk 2dversus3dlaparoscopictotalmesorectalexcisionadevelopmentalmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial |