Glasses-free three-dimensional laparoscopic systems in oncologic surgery: Innovation or equivalence?

Table 1 Comparison of studies on three-dimensional laparoscopic surgery in gastrointestinal cancer

Ref.	Objective	Study type	Population	Technology evaluated	Surgeons	Main outcomes	Statistical significance	Functional evaluation
Shen and Zhang[7], 2025	Compare glasses-free 3D laparoscopy with glasses-based 3D laparoscopy in radical gastrointestinal surgery	Retrospective, comparative	165 patients (99 males, 66 females) with gastric or colorectal cancer	Glasses-free 3D (autostereoscopic) vs glasses-based 3D	All procedures were performed by a single surgeon	No significant differences in operative time, blood loss, or complication rates	Significant differences favoring glasses-based 3D in multiple clinical parameters (P < 0.05)	Quality of life, pain, and functional recovery (6-minute walk) were analyzed
Agrusa et al[12], 2018	Analyze the clinical benefits of 3D vs 2D laparoscopy in various complex procedures	Prospective (3D) vs retrospective-prospective control group (2D)	163 patients (74 males, 89 females) with various surgical indications	3D high-definition laparoscopy vs 2D high-definition laparoscopy	All procedures were performed by the same surgical team	3D reduced operative time in complex procedures; no differences in blood loss or complications	3D showed significant benefits in complex surgeries (P < 0.05); not in simple procedures	Subjective performance (accuracy, depth perception, visual fatigue) was assessed
Busshoff et al[8], 2022	Evaluate surgical performance differences between men and women using 3D vs 2D-ultra-high definition imaging	Randomized crossover trial	28 participants (56 females, 72 males), including students and certified/non-certified surgeons	Passive 3D vs 2D in ultra-high definition resolution	Surgeons and students with varying levels of experience	3D significantly reduced total time and number of errors; greater benefits observed in women and less experienced surgeons	3D showed significant differences in time and errors (P < 0.001)	Performance (time, errors) as well as fatigue and surgical interest were analyzed

3D: Three-dimensional; 2D: Two-dimensional.