Obesity prevalence is increasing rapidly in the last few decades and has become a global health issue. When lifestyle modification and pharmacological therapies fail to achieve the desired goals, Surgery continues to be the most successful approached for weight reduction. In Bariatric surgery, the laparoscopic approach is becoming the gold standard [1]. Gastric bypass surgery is the most commonly performed procedure for weight reduction. The development and innovation of the laparoscopic vision platform have promoted the innovation of the whole surgical concept and technology from laparotomy to minimally invasive surgery. 3D and 4K laparoscopy have brought a new perspective to minimally invasive surgical procedures. The 3D laparoscopic system has significantly entered the field of general surgery. 3D stereo vision overcomes the lacking of a traditional 2D laparoscopic system that lacks the vertical perception, depth of anatomical positions, provides a better surgical field for operating surgeons for more accuracy, and reduces errors [2]. The development of surgically applied 3D stereo vision provides better depth perception and improves hand-eye coordination. Such advantages are particularly relevant when performing complex laparoscopic tasks such as tissue dissection and manipulation, suturing, and knotting [3]. This paper aims to compare the association of 2D and 3D with technical performance and operative time during laparoscopic surgery.

DATA AND METHODS Data Database like PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, Embase, CNKI, were searched to identify articles published in English and Chinese from 2010 to 2020, which compared the clinical results of 2D versus 3D laparoscopic Gastric bypass surgery. Methods A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE Cochrane library, Embase, CNKI databases was conducted using various combinations of the following keywords: laparoscopic, bariatric surgery, 2D and 3D assessments. Articles published in English and Chinese that compared the clinical results of 2D and 3D laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery were included. Literature was included if they were published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2010 and 2021. 50 studies were initially identified, 40 reviewed, 11 were accepted for full text review and 5 were accepted for inclusion in the study

Results 10 duplicated and 10 articles with unrelated topics were excluded. Those 19 articles with abstract only and 6 articles which do not meet inclusion criteria are also removed and finally, 5 articles are further evaluated to include in this review. The cause of exclusion is the absence of a control group being the most common reason. The final result of the literature reviewed was 5 articles.