Search

OBJECTIVE To evaluate if "state-of-the-art" 3D- versus 4K-display techniques could influence surgical performance. BACKGROUND High quality minimally invasive surgery is challenging. Therefore excellent vision is crucial. 3D display technique (3D) and 2D-4K technique (4K) are designed to facilitate surgical performance, either due to spatial resolution (3D) or due to very high resolution (4K). METHODS In randomized cross-over trial the surgical performance of medical students (MS), non-board certified surgeons (NBC), and board certified surgeons (BC) was compared using 3D versus 4K display technique at a minimally invasive training Parkour. RESULTS One hundred twenty-eight participants were included (February 2018 through October 2019, 49 MS, 39 NBC, 40 BC). The overall Parkour time (s) 3D versus 4K was 712.5 s ± 17.5 s versus 999.5 s ± 25.1 s (P < 0.001) for all levels of experience. It was (3D vs 4K) for MS (30 tasks) 555.4 s ± 28.9 s versus 858.7 s ± 41.6 s, (P < 0.0001), for NBC (42 tasks) 935.9 s ± 31.5 s versus 1274.1 s ± 45.1 s (P =< 0.001) and for BC (42 task) 646.3 s ± 30.9 s versus 865.7 s ± 43.7 s (P < 0.001). The overall number of mistakes was (3D vs 4K) 10.0 ± 0.5 versus 13.3 ± 0.7 (P < 0.001), for MS 8.9 ± 0.9 versus 13.1 ± 1.1 (P < 0.001), for NBC 12.45 ± 1.0 versus 16.7 ± 1.2 (P < 0.001) and for BC 8.8 ± 1.0 versus 10.0 ± 1.2 (P = 0.18). MS, BC, and NBC showed shorter performance time in 100% of the task with 3D (significantly in 6/7 tasks). For number of mistakes the effect was less pronounced for more experienced surgeons. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration-task load index was lower with 3D. CONCLUSION 3D laparoscopic display technique optimizes surgical performance compared to the 4K technique. Surgeons benefit from the improved visualization regardless of their individual surgical expertise.