Surgical Procedure, UnspecifiedNCT02775344
3D Versus 2D Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy
A study testing Three dimension laparoscopy in people with Surgical Procedure, Unspecified, run by Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong at 1 site in Hong Kong.
Trial summary
This is a prospective randomized study involving 80 patients. All participates will be given written information on 3D laparoscopy. They will be randomized according to computer-generated random sequence into two groups, 2D and 3D group. The operation will then be performed either using 2D or 3D laparoscopy. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
- What is being tested?
- Three dimension laparoscopy
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 83 participants
- Where
- 1 siteHong Kong
- Study dates
- May 2014to Aug 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Planned for laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy
- Willing and able to participate after the study has been explained
- Those understand either Cantonese, Putonghua or English
Who cannot join
- essential data are missing from the participants records making it impossible to judge treatment outcome.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Hong Kong1 site
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Mary Hospital
Hong Kong
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Three-dimension Versus Two-dimension Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy
This is a prospective randomized study involving 80 patients. All participates will be given written information on 3D laparoscopy. They will be randomized according to computer-generated random sequence into two groups, 2D and 3D group. The operation will then be performed either using 2D or 3D laparoscopy. Surgeons are allowed to change to the other type of laparoscopy if difficulty encountered. After the operation, the surgeons will be required to fill in a questionnaire self-evaluating the performance using Global rating scale component of the intraoperative assessment tool (GOALS), any discomfort encountered, any need for change of laparoscopy and their preference on the type of laparoscopy.
The level of complexity of the operation, duration of operation, blood loss and complications will be recorded.
Read the detailed description
Laparoscopy has greatly replaced laparotomy in most gynaecological operations including oncological procedures. Laparoscopic approach is the mainstay for ovarian cystectomy nowadays. However the loss of depth perception and dexterity remains the drawback of laparoscopy. With the development of robotic surgery, the three-dimension vision and presence of "wrist" motion allowed surgeon to perform more complicated operations in sophisticated manner. Expensive instruments and the need for prolonged time of setup restricted the extensive use of it. Having those considerations in mind, three-dimension (3D) laparoscopy is another possible alternative. With the advancement of technology in 3D vision, it may provide better precision especially in perception of depth and spatial orientation. Dizziness, nausea, headache and ocular fatique are occasional side effects in 3D surgery which created concerns of the surgeons.
There have been studies using standardized tasks shown that 3D laparoscopy will improve the performance in surgeon both objectively and subjectively especially when performing complex task. It was suggested to be able to fasten the learning curve for beginners. The operation time was shorter when laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed using 3D imaging without any major complications encountered.
Yet evidence in the applicability and use in clinical service in gynaecological operations are still inadequate. The investigators would like to evaluate the difference of 2D versus 3D laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy.
- Conditions
- Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
- Being tested
- Three dimension laparoscopy
- Keywords
- Laparoscopy, ovarian cystectomy, three dimension laparoscopy
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Three dimension laparoscopyDevice
Surgery will be performed either with three dimension laparoscopy or two dimension laparoscopy.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| three dimension laparoscopy | Experimental | This group of patients will have laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy performed using three-dimension laparoscopy. The procedure will be performed in usual manner. Receives: Device: Three dimension laparoscopy |
| Two dimension laparoscopy | No intervention | Two-dimension laparosocpy would be used in this group of patient. The procedure will be performed in usual manner. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The Duration of Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy
The duration of laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy will be recorded. It is defined as from insertion of primary port insertion till completion of performance of ovarian cystectomy. The time required for specimen retrieval will not be included.
Measured: duration of operation, up to 120 minutes
Global Rating Scale Component of the Intraoperative Assessment Tool (GOALS) Score
Surgeons are required to fill in a questionnaire using GOALS. It involved seven aspects - depth perception, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, tissue handling, autonomy, sharpness and image resolution. Each aspects scored 0 to 5 with higher the value, better the performance. The sum of the 7 aspects were used in comparison between groups with a maximum score of 35.
Measured: During the operation, up to 120 minutes
Secondary outcomes (5)
Number of Surgeons Encountered Side Effects
Dizziness, nausea and ocular fatique are common side effects of 3D laparoscopy. The number of surgeons experienced discomfort will be reported and any additional discomfort will be recorded.
Measured: during the operation, up to 120 minutes
Preference of Surgeons
Surgeons need to indicate their preference of 3D or 2D laparoscopy after the surgery.
Measured: during the operation, up to 120 minutes
Need for Change of Instrument
The surgeons are allowed to switch from 3D laparoscopy to tranditional 2D laparoscopy if deemed necessary by the surgeons. The reason for switch of instrument will be recorded as well.
Measured: during the operation, up to 120 minutes
Total Blood Loss During Operation
The total amount of blood loss during operation was recorded.
Measured: during the operation, up to 120 minutes
Duration of Hospital Stay
The total duration of hospital stay was recorded.
Measured: Postoperative up to 6 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 May 2016 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2014
- Primary completionMay 2016
- Study completionAug 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Surgical Procedure, UnspecifiedStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 83 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Lui Man Wa, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
- Investigators
- Man Wa Lui, MBBS, Principal investigator, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02775344
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UW 14-096
- Status last verified
- Nov 2019
- First submitted
- 12 May 2016
- Last updated
- 25 Nov 2019
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A. 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc. 2012 May;26(5):1454-60. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-2055-9. Epub 2011 Dec 17.
PubMed 22179446Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD, Okhunov Z, Liss MA, Perez-Lanzac A, McDougall EM, Landman J. Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol. 2014 Feb;28(2):261-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0344. Epub 2014 Jan 10.
PubMed 24059674Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG, Madison KM, Sandhu GS, Varela JE, Benway BM. 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012 Nov;22(9):865-70. doi: 10.1089/lap.2012.0220. Epub 2012 Oct 16.
PubMed 23072406Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, Horgan S, Candinas D, Vorburger SA. Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc. 2012 Oct;26(10):2961-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2295-3. Epub 2012 May 12.
PubMed 22580874Cicione A, Autorino R, Breda A, De Sio M, Damiano R, Fusco F, Greco F, Carvalho-Dias E, Mota P, Nogueira C, Pinho P, Mirone V, Correia-Pinto J, Rassweiler J, Lima E. Three-dimensional vs standard laparoscopy: comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology. 2013 Dec;82(6):1444-50. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.047. Epub 2013 Oct 2.
PubMed 24094658Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondre K, Stanbridge D, Fried GM. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 2005 Jul;190(1):107-13. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004.
PubMed 15972181Bilgen K, Ustun M, Karakahya M, Isik S, Sengul S, Cetinkunar S, Kucukpinar TH. Comparison of 3D imaging and 2D imaging for performance time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013 Apr;23(2):180-3. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182827e17.
PubMed 23579515
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Nov 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Three-dimension Versus Two-dimension Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02775344
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- UW 14-096
- Conditions
- Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
- Keywords
- Laparoscopy, ovarian cystectomy, three dimension laparoscopy
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 83 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Queen Mary Hospital, Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2014
- Primary completion
- May 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 May 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 25 Nov 2019
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This is a prospective randomized study involving 80 patients. All participates will be given written information on 3D laparoscopy. They will be randomized according to computer-generated random sequence into two groups, 2D and 3D group. The operation will then be performed either using 2D or 3D laparoscopy. Surgeons are allowed to change to the other type of laparoscopy if difficulty encountered. After the operation, the surgeons will be required to fill in a questionnaire self-evaluating the performance using Global rating scale component of the intraoperative assessment tool (GOALS), any discomfort encountered, any need for change of laparoscopy and their preference on the type of laparoscopy.
The level of complexity of the operation, duration of operation, blood loss and complications will be recorded.
Detailed description
Laparoscopy has greatly replaced laparotomy in most gynaecological operations including oncological procedures. Laparoscopic approach is the mainstay for ovarian cystectomy nowadays. However the loss of depth perception and dexterity remains the drawback of laparoscopy. With the development of robotic surgery, the three-dimension vision and presence of "wrist" motion allowed surgeon to perform more complicated operations in sophisticated manner. Expensive instruments and the need for prolonged time of setup restricted the extensive use of it. Having those considerations in mind, three-dimension (3D) laparoscopy is another possible alternative. With the advancement of technology in 3D vision, it may provide better precision especially in perception of depth and spatial orientation. Dizziness, nausea, headache and ocular fatique are occasional side effects in 3D surgery which created concerns of the surgeons.
There have been studies using standardized tasks shown that 3D laparoscopy will improve the performance in surgeon both objectively and subjectively especially when performing complex task. It was suggested to be able to fasten the learning curve for beginners. The operation time was shorter when laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed using 3D imaging without any major complications encountered.
Yet evidence in the applicability and use in clinical service in gynaecological operations are still inadequate. The investigators would like to evaluate the difference of 2D versus 3D laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| three dimension laparoscopy | Experimental | Device: Three dimension laparoscopyThis group of patients will have laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy performed using three-dimension laparoscopy. The procedure will be performed in usual manner. |
| Two dimension laparoscopy | No intervention | –Two-dimension laparosocpy would be used in this group of patient. The procedure will be performed in usual manner. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Planned for laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy
- Willing and able to participate after the study has been explained
- Those understand either Cantonese, Putonghua or English
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- essential data are missing from the participants records making it impossible to judge treatment outcome.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Three dimension laparoscopySurgery will be performed either with three dimension laparoscopy or two dimension laparoscopy. | Device | three dimension laparoscopy |
Primary outcome
The Duration of Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy
Time frame: duration of operation, up to 120 minutes
The duration of laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy will be recorded. It is defined as from insertion of primary port insertion till completion of performance of ovarian cystectomy. The time required for specimen retrieval will not be included.
Global Rating Scale Component of the Intraoperative Assessment Tool (GOALS) Score
Time frame: During the operation, up to 120 minutes
Surgeons are required to fill in a questionnaire using GOALS. It involved seven aspects - depth perception, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, tissue handling, autonomy, sharpness and image resolution. Each aspects scored 0 to 5 with higher the value, better the performance. The sum of the 7 aspects were used in comparison between groups with a maximum score of 35.
5 secondary outcomes
Number of Surgeons Encountered Side Effects
Time frame: during the operation, up to 120 minutes
Preference of Surgeons
Time frame: during the operation, up to 120 minutes
Need for Change of Instrument
Time frame: during the operation, up to 120 minutes
Total Blood Loss During Operation
Time frame: during the operation, up to 120 minutes
Duration of Hospital Stay
Time frame: Postoperative up to 6 weeks
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Nov 2019.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 22179446Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A. 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc. 2012 May;26(5):1454-60. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-2055-9. Epub 2011 Dec 17.
- Background: PubMed 24059674Lusch A, Bucur PL, Menhadji AD, Okhunov Z, Liss MA, Perez-Lanzac A, McDougall EM, Landman J. Evaluation of the impact of three-dimensional vision on laparoscopic performance. J Endourol. 2014 Feb;28(2):261-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0344. Epub 2014 Jan 10.
- Background: PubMed 23072406Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG, Madison KM, Sandhu GS, Varela JE, Benway BM. 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012 Nov;22(9):865-70. doi: 10.1089/lap.2012.0220. Epub 2012 Oct 16.
- Background: PubMed 22580874Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, Horgan S, Candinas D, Vorburger SA. Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc. 2012 Oct;26(10):2961-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2295-3. Epub 2012 May 12.
- Background: PubMed 24094658Cicione A, Autorino R, Breda A, De Sio M, Damiano R, Fusco F, Greco F, Carvalho-Dias E, Mota P, Nogueira C, Pinho P, Mirone V, Correia-Pinto J, Rassweiler J, Lima E. Three-dimensional vs standard laparoscopy: comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology. 2013 Dec;82(6):1444-50. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.047. Epub 2013 Oct 2.
- Background: PubMed 15972181Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondre K, Stanbridge D, Fried GM. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 2005 Jul;190(1):107-13. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004.
- Results publication: PubMed 23579515Bilgen K, Ustun M, Karakahya M, Isik S, Sengul S, Cetinkunar S, Kucukpinar TH. Comparison of 3D imaging and 2D imaging for performance time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013 Apr;23(2):180-3. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182827e17.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
Recruiting
Improving Surgical Communication for Patients in Wisconsin
Surgeons, Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Continuous Connected Patient Care (CCPC), a Pilot Testing a Novel Device for Continuous Vitals Monitoring - Department of Anesthesia at PHC
Surgical Procedure, Unspecified, Intensive Care Units (ICUs)
RecruitingPhase 4
A Clinical Trial on the Use of Lidocaine Infusion During Surgery for Pediatric Upper Extremity Fractures and Its Impact on Total Perioperative Opioid Requirements
Fracture Arm, Fracture Closed of Lower End of Forearm, Unspecified
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Cyclobenzaprine for Postoperative Pain in Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures, Abnormal Uterine Bleeding, Unspecified
Recruiting
Preoperative Fasting vs. Not Fasting in Critically Ill Patients
Critical Illness, Surgical Procedure, Unspecified
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Man Wa Lui, MBBS principal investigator
Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Three dimension laparoscopy in people with Surgical Procedure, Unspecified, run by Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong at 1 site in Hong Kong.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Nov 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Hong Kong. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 25 Nov 2019). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The Duration of Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy (time frame: duration of operation, up to 120 minutes). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02775344, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Nov 2019.