AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightTherefore, 3D LPN appears to be superior to conventional 2D LPNs.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
Objective: To compare three-dimensional (3D) with standard two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) with respect to intra- and postoperative outcomes. Material and methods: Data from 112 patients who underwent transperitoneal LPN from 2012 to 2014 by a single experienced surgeon were collected. Sixty patients (group 1) underwent conventional 2D LPN and 52 patients (group 2) 3D LPN. Perioperative patient, procedure, and tumor data were recorded. The follow-up period was 1–5 years. Results: The two groups had similar patient age (p=0.834) and body mass index (p=0.141). The total laparoscopy time (LT) was shorter in group 2 (119.0 vs. 106.0 min; p=0.009). Warm ischemia times (WITs) were also shorter in group 2 (11.5 vs. 10.0 min; p=0.032). The estimated blood loss (EBL) (350.0 vs. 250.0 mL; p<0.001) and hemoglobin (Hb) decrease (1.55 vs. 1.35 g/dL; p=0.536) were lower in the 3D LPN group. Creatinine (0 vs. 0 g/dL; p=0.610) increase and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decrease (0 vs. 0 mL/min/1.73 m2 ; p=0.553) did not demonstrate statistically significant differences. Duration of hospitalization (7 vs. 7 days; p=0.099) and complication rates (p=0.559) were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: The new-generation 3D laparoscope has a great impact on significant LPN intraoperative parameters, mainly LT, WIT, and EBL. Hb decrease is also in favor of 3D vision, although not dramatically altered. Therefore, 3D LPN appears to be superior to conventional 2D LPNs.