ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
Flexible versus rigid single-port peritoneoscopy: a randomized controlled trial in a live porcine model followed by initial experience in human cadavers.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-incision flexible endoscopy (SIFE) for detection and staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- No-incision (NOTES) versus single-incision (single-port) surgery for access to sites of peritoneal carcinomatosis: a back-to-back animal study.Surgical endoscopy · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe compared single incision laparoscopic surgery with flexible endoscope ("flexible SILS") and with rigid optic ("rigid SILS") for access to 11 elective sites of peritoneal carcinomatosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsBack-to-back flexible and rigid SILS peritoneoscopy were performed in ten live pigs. SILS peritoneoscopy was performed using a flexible endoscope or a rigid optic, in random order, together with two rigid 5-mm laparoscopic forceps. Primary endpoint was access success rate to 11 elective sites of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Findings for the most favorable option were then assessed in four human cadavers.
resultsIn the porcine model, the overall rate of access to targets was 98% with flexible SILS and 87% with rigid SILS (p < 0.001). Both flexible and rigid SILS allowed a 100% access rate to diaphragmatic domes, paracolic gutters, splenic and hepatic hilum, pelvic floor, and trigonal bladder. The rates of access to other sites by flexible versus rigid SILS, respectively, were: root of the mesentery (90 vs. 50%), origin of the inferior mesenteric vein (90 vs. 50%), inferior vena cava (100 vs. 90%), and cul-de-sac of Douglas (100 vs. 50%). No complications were observed. Procedures were performed in mean time of 26 and 24 min, respectively. These findings were confirmed for flexible SILS in four human cadavers.
conclusionsFlexible SILS is superior to rigid SILS to evaluate the peritoneal cavity in a timely manner. This suggests a need for flexible instrumentation or other technical solutions to perform thorough minimally invasive surgical evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.