ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
Surgeons' perceptions of transanal endoscopic microsurgery using minilaparoscopic instruments in a simulator: the thinner the better.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experimental evaluation of the fineness of needle forceps: advantages other than minimal access.Surgery today · 2021Article
- Low-Friction Minilaparoscopy Outperforms Regular 5-mm and 3-mm Instruments for Precise Tasks.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
- Minilaparoscopy For Inguinal Hernia Repair.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral issues have limited the widespread adoption of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). The need for specialized equipment and the steep learning curve represent one of them. To operate on within a 4-cm diameter, rectoscope represents a major technical challenge. However, minilaparoscopic surgery has been introduced to reduce invasiveness and abdominal wall trauma. In TEM, instrument miniaturization may lead to technique optimization. We hypothesized that visualization and maneuverability during TEM performed with 3-mm minilaparoscopic instruments would be superior to TEM performed with conventional 5-mm instruments.
methodsEighteen general and colorectal surgeons with experience with TEM under ten cases were recruited. Two tasks should be accomplished using the TEO(®)-Neoderma simulator. First, using conventional 5-mm TEO(®) curved-tip instruments, a "polypoid lesion" should be excised. Next, closure of the "rectal" defect should be undertaken. In the second part, the same participants repeated the same excision/closure tasks using 3-mm minilaparoscopic instruments. After tasks conclusion, participants fulfilled an evaluation questionnaire with seven questions regarding visualization and maneuverability when using 3-mm compared to 5-mm instruments.
resultsFor each one of the seven questions in the questionnaire, the score results were significantly higher for the 3-mm instruments indicating that performance with the 3-mm minilaparoscopic instruments in the TEO simulator was in all cases between "better than expected" and "much better than expected." Appropriateness of the diameter of the minilaparoscopic instruments was the best evaluated parameter. The question addressing the ease of performing the tasks in the simulator presented the lowest mean score.
conclusionsThe perceptions of participating surgeons indicated that there is better visualization and maneuverability during basic transanal endoscopic microsurgery tasks conducted in a simulator using 3-mm minilaparoscopic instruments when compared to conventional 5-mm instruments.
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.