Two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional vision during the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A matched comparison of operative and long-term functional outcomes

2D vs. 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy



outcome assessment, prostatectomy, laparoscopy, three-dimensional image


Background/Aim: The three-dimensional (3D) display system can solve essential problems in conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), like depth perception and spatial orientation. Several studies reported initial comparisons of LRP with 2D and 3D vision systems in terms of operative outcomes, with 3D systems coming out on top. However, there are few published comparison studies on the long-term outcomes of LRP with 2D and 3D vision systems. In this regard, we aimed to compare operative and long-term functional results of 3D-High definition (HD) LRP with conventional two-dimensional (2D)-HD display systems.

Methods: A total of 115 cases that underwent LRP between October 2010 and December 2016 were prospectively evaluated, and a prospective cohort study was conducted. Inclusion criteria at baseline were as follows: age at surgery <75 yr, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration <20 ng/ml, clinical tumor stage <T4, no diagnosis of metastatic disease, and informed consent to participate in the study. Patients who underwent salvage treatments after LRP and patients with incomplete follow-up were excluded. The patients were divided into groups, Group 1 (n=72) and Group 2 (n=43), according to the display systems used, 2D-HD vs. 3D-HD during LRP. Demographic data, operative and postoperative, and long-term follow-up outcomes were recorded. Additionally, urinary continence rate determined with a patient questionnaire and erectile functions determined with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire were recorded. All obtained parameters were compared between the groups using the independent t-test and the chi-square test. Differences were considered significant at two-sided P <0.05 and 95% confidence interval.

Results: All patients completed a 24-month follow-up procedure. The groups were similar in age, serum PSA level, prostate volume, preoperative Gleason score, and cancer-positive core number. There were significantly better results in group 2 than in group 1 for operative parameters, catheterization time, and hospital stay (P<0.001, for all parameters). At long-term follow-up, the urinary continence rate was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (P=0.023). Similarly, significantly higher IIEF scores were determined in the group 2 (P<0.001).

Conclusion: Our results suggest that using a 3D-HD display system during LRP provides much better long-term functional and operative outcomes and may provide a cheap and equal alternative to the RARP procedure.


Download data is not yet available.


Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87-108. DOI:

Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:932-42. DOI:

Moretti TBC, Magna LA, Reis LO. Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;44:150-61. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.015. DOI:

Kapoor KK, Kumar A. A Randomized Controlled Study of Robot-Assisted versus 3D Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Carcinoma Prostate. Adv Urol. 2023;2023:4666116. doi: 10.1155/2023/4666116. DOI:

Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, Ho R, Cadeddu JA, Roehrborn CG, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:453-8. DOI:

Aykan S, Akin Y, Pelit ES, Gulmez H, Tuken M, Colakerol A, et al. Impact of Motorized Articulating Laparoscopic Devices with Three-Dimension Visualizing System: A Pilot Study. J Endourol. 2017;31:174-9. DOI:

Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A. Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet. 1998;351:248–51. DOI:

Shuai H, Duan X, Wu T. Comparison of perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes between 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2023 Sep 19;13:1249683. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1249683. DOI:

Aykan S, Singhal P, Nguyen DP, Yigit A, Tuken M, Yakut E, et al. Perioperative, pathologic, and early continence outcomes comparing three-dimensional and two-dimensional display systems for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy--a retrospective, single-surgeon study. J Endourol. 2014;28:539-43. DOI:

Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA, et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59:702–7. DOI:

Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, et al. Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112:798–812. DOI:

Abdelshehid CS, Eichel L, Lee D, Uribe C, Boker J, Basillote J, et al. Current trends in urologic laparoscopic surgery. J Endourol. 2005;19:15–20. DOI:

Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG, Madison KM, Sandhu GS, Varela JE, et al. 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22:865–70. DOI:

Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Rassweiler J, Knoll T. Threedimensional laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex-vivo laparoscopic tasks. J Endourol. 2012;26:1085–8. DOI:

Cicione A, Autorino R, Breda A, De Sio M, Damiano R, Fusco F, et al. Three-dimensional vs Standard laparoscopy:comparative assessment using avalidated program for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology. 2013;82:1444–50. DOI:

Smith R, Schwab K, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M, et al. Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1453–9. DOI:

Becker H, Melzer A, Schurr MO, Buess G. 3-D video techniques in endoscopic surgery. Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1993;1:40–6. DOI:

Rassweiler J, Safi KC, Subotic S, Teber D, Frede T. Robotics and telesurgery—an update on their position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2005;14:109–22. DOI:

Vora AA, Dajani D, Lynch JH, Kowalczyk KJ. Anatomic and technical considerations for optimizing recovery of urinary function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:78-87. DOI:

Bove P, Iacovelli V, Celestino F, De Carlo F, Vespasiani G, Finazzi Agrò E. 3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in organ-confined prostate cancer: comparison of operative data and pentafecta rates: a single cohort study. BMC Urol. 2015;15:12. DOI:






Research Article

How to Cite

Baştuğ Y, Aykan S. Two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional vision during the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A matched comparison of operative and long-term functional outcomes: 2D vs. 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Surg Med [Internet]. 2023 Oct. 13 [cited 2024 May 25];7(10):678-81. Available from: