Does 3D laparoscopic video technology affect long-term survival in right hemicolectomy for cancer compared to standard 2D? A propensity score study

Effect of complete mesocolic excision (cme) on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer: multivariate meta-analysis and restricted mean survival time estimation

INTRODUCTION

Debate exists concerning the impact of complete mesocolic excision (CME) on long-term oncological outcomes. The aim of this review was to condense the updated literature and assess the effect of CME on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through July 2023. The included studies evaluated the effect of CME on survival. The primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. GRADE methodology was used to summarize the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Ten studies (3665 patients) were included. Overall, 1443 (39.4%) underwent CME. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, stage I-III CME patients lived 2.5 months (95% CI 1.1-4.1) more on average compared with noCME patients. Similarly, stage III patients that underwent CME lived longer compared to noCME patients at 55-month follow-up (6.1 months; 95% CI 3.4-8.5). The time-dependent HRs analysis for CME vs. noCME (stage I-III disease) shows a higher mortality hazard in patients with noCME at 6 months (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.71), 12 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43-0.73), and 24 months (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92) up to 27 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that CME is associated with unclear OS benefit in stage I-III disease. Caution is recommended to avoid overestimation of the effect of CME in stage III disease since the marginal benefit of a more extended resection may have been influenced by tumor biology/molecular profile and multimodal adjuvant treatments.

Which video technology brings the higher cognitive burden and motion sickness in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 3D, 2D-4 K or 3D-4 K? a propensity score study

BACKGROUND

Technological development has offered laparoscopic colorectal surgeons new video systems to improve depth perception and perform difficult task in limited space. The aim of this study was to assess the cognitive burden and motion sickness for surgeons during 3D, 2D-4 K or 3D-4 K laparoscopic colorectal procedures and to report post-operative data with the different video systems employed.

METHODS

Patients were assigned to either 3D, 2D-4 K or 3D-4 K video and two questionnaires (Simulator Sickness Questionnaire-SSQ- and NASA Task Load Index -TLX) were used during elective laparoscopic colorectal resections (October 2020-August 2022) from two operating surgeons. Short-term results of the operations performed with the three different video systems were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 113 consecutive patients were included: 41 (36%) in the 3D Group (A), 46 (41%) in the 3D-4 K Group and 26 (23%) in the 2D-4 K Group (C). Weighted and adjusted regression models showed no significant difference in cognitive load amongst the surgeons in the three groups of video systems when using the NASA-TLX. An increased risk for slight/moderate general discomfort and eyestrain in the 3D-4 K group compared with 2D-4 K group (OR = 3.5; p = 0.0057 and OR = 2.8; p = 0.0096, respectively) was observed. Further, slight/moderate difficulty focusing was lower in both 3D and 3D-4 K groups compared with 2D-4 K group (OR = 0.4; p = 0.0124 and OR = 0.5; p = 0.0341, respectively), and higher in the 3D-4 K group compared with 3D group (OR = 2.6; p = 0.0124). Patient population characteristics, operative time, post-operative staging, complication rate and length of stay were similar in the three groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

3D and 3D-4 K systems, when compared with 2D-4 K video technology, have a higher risk for slight/moderate general discomfort and eyestrain, but show lower difficulty focusing. Short post-operative outcomes do not differ, whichever imaging system is used.