Three-dimensional laparoscopy - Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy

Background: This study was designed to compare conventional laparoscopy wit h three-dimensional (3-D) laparoscopy. Method: Thirty candidates, 20 inexperienced and 10 experienced in operative laparoscopy, executed standardized exercises on a pelvitrainer. The candid ates were randomized to two groups. Group A executed the exercises first wi th the conventional and then with the three-dimensional system. Group B acc omplished the exercises in the reverse sequence. At the end of the exercise s, the candidates answered specific questions about the two systems. Results: A total of 21 h 6 min 6 sec of laparoscopic exercises were analyze d-10 h 8 min 1 sec with the conventional and 10 h 58 min 5 sec with the thr ee-dimensional system (p = 0.38). Group A required 12 h 26 min 56 sec to pe rform all the exercises. There was no statistically significant difference from group B, where the candidates needed 8 h 39 min 10 sec (p = 0.14). Nei ther were there any differences in the number of failed attempts between th e two groups. There were also no statistical difference when the results ob tained from the candidates without experience in laparoscopy and the partic ipants experienced in operative laparoscopy were analyzed separately. Both the inexperienced and the experienced candidates became tired earlier, had more headaches, and needed extra time to adapt to the 3-D system. Conclusion: When analyzed in a standardized fashion, 3-D laparoscopy does n ot have any significant advantages over conventional laparoscopy.