Résumé
Objective To compare clinical outcome between 3D and 2D laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery for renal tumor. Methods Ninety patients who underwent laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery for renal tumor were collected. The patients were divided into 3D laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery (observation group) and traditional laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery (control group) according to the surgery method with 45 cases in each group. The operating time, renal warm ischemia time, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, hospitalization cost and rate of postoperative complications were compared between 2 groups. Results The operating time and renal warm ischemia time in observation group were significantly shorter than those in control group:(80.3 ± 10.7) min vs. (94.6 ± 18.5) min and (17.8 ± 3.1) min vs. (23.4 ± 4.7) min, and there were statistical differences (P0.05). Conclusions Compared with the traditional 2D laparoscopic technology, 3D laparoscopic technology has obvious advantage in spatial location and the sense of depth. To some extent, 3D laparoscopy reduces the operation difficulty, and shortens the operative time and renal warm ischemia time.