NCT07171801

Comparing 3D and 2D Views in Biportal Spine Surgery: A Pilot Simulation Study

3D vs. 2D Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Randomized Blinded Crossover Pilot Simulation Study

• Status: Not Yet Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 6 (estimated)
• Sponsor: Felix Corr · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Accepted

Summary

This study aims to compare three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) visualization in biportal endoscopic spine surgery using a simulated environment. Surgeons will perform standardized tasks on a spine model while using either 3D or 2D endoscopic systems. The goal is to determine whether 3D technology can improve precision, efficiency, and movement control during surgery. The study uses a randomized, blinded, crossover design to ensure objective results and may help guide future training and technology use in spinal endoscopy.

Detailed description

Spinal endoscopy, particularly the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique, is an increasingly adopted minimally invasive approach for treating lumbar spine pathologies. While it offers clinical advantages over traditional open surgery-including less tissue disruption, reduced blood loss, and faster recovery-its uptake has been limited, in part due to the technical challenges associated with two-dimensional (2D) endoscopic visualization. The lack of depth perception inherent to 2D imaging can impair spatial orientation, hand-eye coordination, and surgical precision, especially in anatomically complex regions such as the lumbar spine. Three-dimensional (3D) endoscopic systems are designed to address this limitation by restoring binocular depth cues and providing stereoscopic visualization. Preliminary evidence from other surgical fields-such as laparoscopy and cranial neurosurgery-suggests that 3D visualization improves operative performance, task efficiency, and user confidence. However, the benefits of 3D visualization in spinal endoscopy remain poorly understood, with no rigorous controlled studies to date assessing its impact on performance metrics under standardized conditions. This randomized, blinded, crossover pilot study is designed to objectively evaluate the effect of 3D versus 2D endoscopic visualization on technical performance during simulated UBE procedures. Participants-including surgeons at various experience levels-will complete standardized surgical tasks on high-fidelity lumbar spine models using both 2D and 3D endoscopic systems. Motion tracking technology will be employed to quantitatively analyze instrument movement, capturing key metrics such as path length, velocity, motion economy, and high-velocity excursions. The crossover design ensures that each participant serves as their own control, and blinding minimizes observational bias during performance assessment. The simulation setting allows for reproducible conditions free from patient-related variability, ensuring that observed differences can be attributed to visualization modality rather than anatomical or clinical complexity. Findings from this study will provide foundational data on the potential utility of 3D visualization in spinal endoscopy, with implications for surgical training, operative safety, and the future integration of stereoscopic technologies in spine surgery.

Conditions

• Spinal Diseases
• Endoscopy Simulation
• Lumbar Vertebrae
• Randomized Controlled Trial
• Three-Dimensional
• Simulation Training

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
DEVICE	Three-Dimensional Endoscopic Visualization	Use of a stereoscopic 3D high-definition endoscopic system with dual optical channels, projecting to a stereoscopic monitor viewed with polarized glasses, to perform standardized spinal simulation tasks.
DEVICE	Two-Dimensional Endoscopic Visualization	Use of the same high-definition endoscopic system with stereoscopic function deactivated, providing conventional monoscopic two-dimensional visualization, to perform standardized spinal simulation tasks.

Timeline

• Start date: 2025-10-01
• Primary completion: 2025-11-01
• Completion: 2025-12-01
• First posted: 2025-09-15
• Last updated: 2025-09-16