ReviewJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2015
Emerging Techniques in Minimally Invasive Surgery. Pros and Cons.
Review in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- INFLUENCE OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC EXPERIENCE SKILLS ON ROBOTIC SURGERY DEXTERITY.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2022Article
- SINGLE PORT LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY: TECHNICAL ASPECTS AND RESULTS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Article
- Cost-effectiveness of per oral endoscopic myotomy relative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound-assisted cholecystogastrostomy by a novel fully covered metal stent for the treatment of gallbladder stones.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New trends have emerged regarding the best minimally invasive access approaches to perform gastrointestinal surgery. However, these newer approaches are seen critically by those who demand a more strict assessment of outcomes and safety. An international panel of expert gathered at the 2014 American College of Surgeons Meeting with the goal of providing an evidence-based understanding of the real value of these approaches in gastrointestinal surgery. The panel has compared the efficacy and safety of most established approaches to gastrointestinal diseases to those of new treatment modalities: peroral esophageal myotomy vs. laparoscopic myotomy for achalasia, transgastric vs. transvaginal approach, and single-incision vs. multi-port access minimally invasive surgery. The panel found that (1) the outcome of these new approaches was not superior to that of established surgical procedures; (2) the new approaches are generally performed in few highly specialized centers; and (3) transgastric and transvaginal approaches might be safe and feasible in very experienced hands, but cost, training, operative time, and tools seem to limit their application for the treatment of common procedures such as cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Because the expected advantages of new approaches have yet to be proven in controlled trials, new approaches should be considered for adoption into practice only after thorough analyses of their efficacy and effectiveness and appropriate training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25678255What 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.