Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2012
Pre-bent instruments used in single-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery: comparative study of performance in a dry lab.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Guideline
- Laparoscopy training of novices with complex curved instruments using 2D- and 3D-visualization.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Trial
- Single-Incision Transumbilical Surgery (SITUS) versus Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized comparative study of performance with novices in a dry laboratory.World journal of urology · 2015Trial
- Motion Measurement and Analysis of Different Instruments for Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2022Article
- Single incision laparoscopic surgery using conventional laparoscopic instruments versus two-port laparoscopic surgery for adnexal lesions.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A Novel Hydraulic Actuation System Utilizing Magnetorheological Fluids for Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- [Single incision laparoscopy : Current status].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017Review
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.Visceral medicine · 2016Review
- Performance analysis on physical simulator of four different instrument setups in laparo-endoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
22219012What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.