Z Orthop Unfall 2019; 157(01): 35-41
DOI: 10.1055/a-0630-3073
Original Article/Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

3-D Optics for Thoracoscopic Vertebral Body Replacement – Essential Technical Progress or Just Nice to Have?

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Cornelius Jacobs*
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
,
Milena Maria Ploeger*
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
,
Sebastian Scheidt
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
,
Philip Peter Rößler
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
,
Rahel Bornemann
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
,
Collin Jacobs
2   Poliklinik für Kieferorthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Jena
,
Christof Burger
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
,
Dieter Christian Wirtz
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
,
Fridjof Trommer
3   Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Luisenhospital Aachen
,
Frank Alexander Schildberg
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 July 2018 (online)

Abstract

Background Three-dimensional (3-D) endoscopic optics use 2 cameras to simulate the different perspectives of the right and left eye, creating the illusion of spatial depth. Optimised orientation as well as improved hand-eye coordination compared to 2-D-optics could be proven in standardised test setups (black box) and in laparoscopic use. This retrospective study examines whether these results can also be applied to thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction. Hypotheses: 1. Ventral vertebral body replacement using 3-D-thoracoscopy results in a shorter operation time than with 2-D-thoracoscopy. 2. Perioperative blood loss is less, due to better spatial orientation (faster haemostasis) and reduced tissue laceration.

Material and Methods 29 patients met the inclusion criteria of this retrospective study. Between 08 – 2012 and 08 – 2017, all of these received ventral thoracoscopic vertebral replacement at the thoracolumbar junction (Th11 to L2). Patients with additional anterior procedures (e.g. anterolateral plate) were excluded. Perioperative data such as blood loss, duration of surgery and length of hospital stay were analysed. Conventional 2-D-optics were used in n = 14 patients and 3-D-optics in 15 patients. Aesculap EinsteinVision® 2.0 was used as the 3-D-optics. Statistical significance was calculated using Studentʼs t-test.

Results The most common diagnosis was a L1 fracture (n = 18, 62%). Mean OR time was 24 minutes shorter in the 3-D group (149 ± 29, 107 – 198 min) than in the 2-D group (173 ± 39, 125 – 260 min), but this difference was not significant. Total perioperative blood loss in the 3-D group was significantly lower than in the 2-D group (**p = 0.043). Proportional intraoperative blood loss in the 3-D group was also lower (mean around 115 ml), but not significantly so. Significantly lower values were found for the delivery rate of the thoracic drainage in the 3-D group (248 vs. 560 ml, *p = 0.195). Inpatient stay with the 3-D group was on average 1.5 days (d) shorter (8.7 d for the 3-D group, 10.2 d for the 2-D group) but this difference was not significant (p = 0.27).

Conclusion Thoracoscopic-assisted vertebral body replacement at the thoracolumbar junction is a safe and reliable surgical procedure using conventional 2-D-optics or the new 3-D-optics. Both methods allow thoracoscopic vertebral body replacement in comparable operation times but in our study the 3-D group presented with significantly lower postoperative blood loss. Due to the small number of cases and because of the retrospective design, the present study is considered to be a pilot study only.

* Authors contributed equally


 
  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Gonschorek O, Spiegl U, Weiss T. et al. [Reconstruction after spinal fractures in the thoracolumbar region]. Unfallchirurg 2011; 114: 26-34
  • 2 Spiegl U, Hauck S, Merkel P. et al. 6-Year follow-up of ventral monosegmental spondylodesis of incomplete burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine using three cortical iliac crest bone grafts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132: 1473-1480
  • 3 Nicolau S, Soler L, Mutter D. et al. Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surg Oncol 2011; 20: 189-201
  • 4 Buchs NC, Volonte F, Pugin F. et al. Three-dimensional laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 692-693
  • 5 Ray WZ, Schmidt MH. Thoracoscopic Vertebrectomy for Thoracolumbar Junction Fractures and Tumors: Surgical Technique and Evaluation of the Learning Curve. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29: E344-E350
  • 6 Wenzl R, Lehner R, Vry U. et al. Three-dimensional video-endoscopy: clinical use in gynaecological laparoscopy. Lancet 1994; 344: 1621-1622
  • 7 Chan AC, Chung SC, Yim AP. et al. Comparison of two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 1997; 11: 438-440
  • 8 McLachlan G. From 2D to 3D: the future of surgery?. Lancet 2011; 378: 1368
  • 9 Chiu CJ, Lobo Prabhu K, Tan-Tam CC. et al. Using three-dimensional laparoscopy as a novel training tool for novice trainees compared with two-dimensional laparoscopy. Am J Surg 2015; 209: 824-827.e1 discussion 827
  • 10 Bhayani SB, Andriole GL. Three-Dimensional (3D) Vision: Does It Improve Laparoscopic Skills? An Assessment of a 3D Head-Mounted Visualization System. Rev Urol 2005; 7: 211-214
  • 11 Buia A, Stockhausen F, Filmann N. et al. 3D vs. 2D imaging in laparoscopic surgery – an advantage? Results of standardised black box training in laparoscopic surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2017; 402: 167-171
  • 12 Taffinder N, Smith SG, Huber J. et al. The effect of a second-generation 3D endoscope on the laparoscopic precision of novices and experienced surgeons. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 1087-1092
  • 13 Kong SH, Oh BM, Yoon H. et al. Comparison of two- and three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic performance: a novel 3D system with one camera. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 1132-1143
  • 14 Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Rassweiler J. et al. Three-dimensional laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex-vivo laparoscopic tasks. J Endourol 2012; 26: 1085-1088
  • 15 Berlit S, Hornemann A, Sütterlin M. et al. Laparoscopic hysterectomy in the overweight and obese: does 3D imaging make a change?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 295: 125-131
  • 16 Buia A, Stockhausen F, Filmann N. et al. 2D vs. 3D imaging in laparoscopic surgery-results of a prospective randomized trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2017; 402: 1241-1253
  • 17 Vaccaro AR, Oner C, Kepler CK. et al. AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: fracture description, neurological status, and key modifiers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 2028-2037
  • 18 Bühren V, Beisse R, Potulski M. [Minimally invasive ventral spondylodesis in injuries to the thoracic and lumbar spine]. Chirurg 1997; 68: 1076-1084
  • 19 Alaraimi B, El Bakbak W, Sarker S. et al. A randomized prospective study comparing acquisition of laparoscopic skills in three-dimensional (3D) vs. two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy. World J Surg 2014; 38: 2746-2752
  • 20 Sørensen SMD, Savran MM, Konge L. et al. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 11-23