# Three‐dimensional versus two‐dimensional laparoscopy: What is the evidence?

## TL;DR

This paper reviews evidence comparing 3D and 2D laparoscopy, finding that 3D improves depth perception and surgical outcomes.

## Contribution

A systematic review of clinical evidence on the benefits of 3D visualization in laparoscopic surgery.

## Key findings

- 3D visualization improves depth perception and reduces surgical errors.
- 3D systems are associated with shorter operating times and hospital stays.
- Some controversies remain regarding the clinical benefits of 3D laparoscopy.

## Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery has made tremendous progress in the last two decades thanks to the more sophisticated instrumentation, new entry ports, vessel sealant devices, and ultrasound dissectors. Cameras and monitors are now high‐definition or 4 K, increasing the clarity of the image available to the surgeon. Those progresses have made minimally invasive surgery safer. However, the biggest challenge of minimally invasive surgery is the lack of depth perception, which requires the surgeon's brain to recreate a three‐dimensional (3D) image using cues in the field. The development of 3D cameras enable surgeons to have a more realistic depth perception. The development of the third generation of 3D cameras, combined with light‐polarizing glasses, resolved the problem of dizziness experienced by surgeons during long and complicated procedures.

To review the evidence from human and veterinary surgery regarding the benefits of 3D visualization during laparoscopy.

The evidence suggests that 3D visualization enhances depth perception, safety, a smoother learning curve, and overall wellness for surgeons. Some controversies persist on the clinical benefit of 3D visualization, even if most of the studies showed statistically significant reduction of operating time, estimated blood loss, operating errors, and shorten hospital stay in human patients.