Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22219012›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2012

Pre-bent instruments used in single-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery: comparative study of performance in a dry lab.

Arkadiusz Miernik, Martin Schoenthaler, Kerstin Lilienthal, Alexander Frankenschmidt, Wojciech Konrad Karcz, Simon Kuesters

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Single incision laparoscopy : Current status].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Arkadiusz MiernikDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Hugstettersträsse 55, 79106 Freiburg, Germany. arkadiusz.miernik@uniklinik-freiburg.de
Martin Schoenthaler
Kerstin Lilienthal
Alexander Frankenschmidt
Wojciech Konrad Karcz
Simon Kuesters

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferent types of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) have become increasingly popular. Although SILS is technically even more challenging than conventional laparoscopy, published data of first clinical series seem to demonstrate the feasibility of these approaches. Various attempts have been made to overcome restrictions due to loss of triangulation in SILS by specially designed SILS-specific instruments. This study involving novices in a dry lab compared task performances between conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) using newly designed pre-bent instruments.

methodsIn this study, 90 medical students without previous experience in laparoscopic techniques were randomly assigned to undergo one of three procedures: CLS, SPLS using two pre-bent instruments (SPLS-pp), or SPLS using one pre-bent and one straight laparoscopic instrument (SPLS-ps). In the dry lab, the participants performed four typical laparoscopic tasks of increasing difficulty. Evaluation included performance times or number of completed tasks within a given time frame. All performances were videotaped and evaluated for unsuccessful attempts and unwanted interactions of instruments. Using subjective questionnaires, the participants rated difficulties with two-dimensional vision and coordination of instruments.

resultsTask performances were significantly better in the CLS group than in either SPLS group. The SPLS-ps group showed a tendency toward better performances than the SPLS-pp group, but the difference was not significant. Video sequences and participants` questionnaires showed instrument interaction as the major problem in the single-incision surgery groups.

conclusionsAlthough SILS is feasible, as shown in clinical series published by laparoscopically experienced experts, SILS techniques are demanding due to restrictions that come with the loss of triangulation. These can be compensated only partially by currently available SILS-designed instruments. The future of SILS depends on further improvements in the available equipment or the development of new approaches such as needlescopically assisted or robotically assisted procedures.

Indexed as

Analysis of VarianceClinical CompetenceEquipment DesignGeneral SurgeryHumansLaparoscopyPsychomotor PerformanceStudents, MedicalSurgical Instruments

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.