ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
International consensus on safe techniques and error definitions in laparoscopic surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The clinical significance of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Pituitary society expert Delphi consensus: operative workflow in endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resection.Pituitary · 2021Article
- Management of obstructive sleep apnea in children: a Canada-wide survey.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2021Article
- Cognition errors in the treatment course of patients with anastomotic failure after colorectal resection.Patient safety in surgery · 2019Article
- Contemporary management of paraesophaegeal hernias: establishing a European expert consensus.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDefinitions of errors and poor technique in laparoscopic surgery are lacking in modern clinical practice. As a result, educators often base their teaching on personal experience and individual preferences. The objective of this study was to achieve expert consensus regarding these definitions in order to provide a framework for a standardized approach to teaching safe technique and avoiding common errors in laparoscopic surgery.
methodsA Delphi survey was conducted with an international panel of experts in laparoscopic surgery. Survey items for definitions and examples of errors and resulting injuries (events) were derived from literature reviews and procedural observations. An online platform was used to administer the survey. Experts were requested to rate their level of agreement regarding survey items on a 5-point Likert-type scale; additional comments were facilitated through free-text entries. Consensus was defined as Cronbach's α > 0.70. Items that were rated ≥ 3 ("somewhat agree") by 75 % or more of the panel were included in the consensus list. The Delphi process was continued until all subsections of the survey met the defined consensus level.
resultsTwo survey rounds were completed with 33 experts from 12 countries (round 1) and 25 experts from nine countries (round 2). Overall consensus was high for both rounds (α = 0.9). Seventeen definitions and 39 examples of errors and events were included in the final consensus list.
conclusionsStandardized definitions and examples of technical errors in laparoscopic surgery were established using a consensus-based approach. These definitions can serve as uniform nomenclature and can be used by educators as a reference guide to ensure standardization in surgical training and performance assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24357424What 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.