To determine whether the use of 3-dimensional (3D) imaging translates into a better surgical performance of naïve urologic laparoscopic surgeons during pyeloplasty (PY) and partial nephrectomy (PN) procedures.

Eighteen surgeons without any previous laparoscopic experience were randomly assigned to perform PY and PN in a porcine model using initially 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D laparoscopy. A surgical performance score was rated by an “expert” tutor through a modified 5-item global rating scale contemplating operative field view, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, tissue handling, and autonomy. Overall surgical time, complications, subjective perception of participating surgeons, and inconveniences related to the 3D vision were recorded.

No difference in terms if operative time was found between 2D or 3D laparoscopy for both the PY (P = .51) and the PN (P = .28) procedures. A better rate in terms of surgical performance score was noted by the tutors when the study participants were using 3D vs 2D, for both PY (3.6 [0.8] vs 3.0 [0.4]; P = .034) and PN (3.6 [0.51] vs 3.15 [0.63]; P = .001). No complications occurred in any of the procedures. Most (77.2%) of the participating naïve laparoscopic surgeons had the perception that 3D laparoscopy was overall easier than 2D. Headache (18.1%), nausea (18.1%), and visual disturbance (18.1%) were the most common issues reported by the surgeons during 3D procedures.

Despite the absence of translation in a shorter operative time, the use of 3D technology seems to facilitate the surgical performance of naïve surgeons during laparoscopic kidney procedures on a porcine model.