ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
Toward scar-free surgery: an analysis of the increasing complexity from laparoscopic surgery to NOTES.
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 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.
- The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research - a systematic review.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Review
- Achieving Interface and Environment Fidelity in the Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Surgical Trainer.International journal of human-computer studies · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNOTES is an emerging technique for performing surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy. Debate about its real benefit over the traditional laparoscopic technique is on-going. There have been several clinical studies comparing NOTES to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, no work has been done to compare these techniques from a Human Factors perspective. This study presents a systematic analysis describing and comparing different existing NOTES methods to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsVideos of endoscopic/laparoscopic views from fifteen live cholecystectomies were analyzed to conduct a detailed task analysis of the NOTES technique. A hierarchical task analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and several hybrid transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomies was performed and validated by expert surgeons. To identify similarities and differences between these techniques, their hierarchical decomposition trees were compared. Finally, a timeline analysis was conducted to compare the steps and substeps.
resultsAt least three variations of the NOTES technique were used for cholecystectomy. Differences between the observed techniques at the substep level of hierarchy and on the instruments being used were found. The timeline analysis showed an increase in time to perform some surgical steps and substeps in NOTES compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
conclusionAs pure NOTES is extremely difficult given the current state of development in instrumentation design, most surgeons utilize different hybrid methods-combination of endoscopic and laparoscopic instruments/optics. Results of our hierarchical task analysis yielded an identification of three different hybrid methods to perform cholecystectomy with significant variability among them. The varying degrees to which laparoscopic instruments are utilized to assist in NOTES methods appear to introduce different technical issues and additional tasks leading to an increase in the surgical time. The NOTES continuum of invasiveness is proposed here as a classification scheme for these methods, which was used to construct a clear roadmap for training and technology development.
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.