Three-dimensional endoscopic endonasal surgery: a systematic review.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare participant performance and preference in the use of three-dimensional (3D) endoscopy compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D) endoscopy.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Medline, ClinicalKey, BMJ Case Reports, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched for English-language articles published between 2005 and 2020. Studies reporting comparisons of outcomes between 3D and 2D endoscopes were identified. Data relating to performance-related outcomes, as well as the participants' preferred endoscope were extracted, and pooled using meta-analysis models.

Results: Ten studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Six studies reported results of participants completing simulated tasks with endoscopes, while four reported full procedures. Peg transfer tasks (n = 4 cohorts) were found to be completed significantly faster with the 3D versus 2D endoscope (pooled mean difference 6.8 seconds, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3-11.3), while no significant difference in times taken was observed for touch tasks (n = 4; pooled mean difference 3.7 seconds, 95% CI: -1.9 to 9.2). The secondary outcome of participant preference was reported by five studies, in which a significant preference for the 3D endoscope was observed (P = .010), with a pooled total of 72% (95% CI: 59-83) of participants preferring this to the 2D endoscope.

Conclusions: There is a growing body of evidence in support of 3D visualization in endoscopy. We have demonstrated 3D endoscopy to be associated with a significantly shorter time to performing simulated, reproducible and controlled tasks, and to be the preference of participants. This study provides grounds for further evaluation of the technology, and the potential for a greater widespread use. Laryngoscope, 132:1895-1903, 2022.