ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Low-Friction Minilaparoscopy Outperforms Regular 5-mm and 3-mm Instruments for Precise Tasks.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental evaluation of the fineness of needle forceps: advantages other than minimal access.Surgery today · 2021Article
- Resection of a giant nonparasitic splenic cyst by minilaparoscopy.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- A new hybrid mini-laparoscopic technique for Spigelian hernia.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Minilaparoscopy For Inguinal Hernia Repair.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
- Twenty years of mini-laparoscopy in Brazil: What we have learned so far.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Assessment of Tubal Patency with Selective Chromopertubation at Office Hysteroscopy versus Modified Minilaparoscopy in Infertile Women.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
- Which Cholecystectomy do Medical Students Prefer?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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTherapeutic laparoscopy was incorporated into surgical practice more than 25 y ago. Several modifications have since been developed to further minimize surgical trauma and improve results. Minilaparoscopy, performed with 2- to 3-mm instruments was introduced in the mid 1990s but failed to attain mainstream use, mostly because of the limitations of the early devices. Buoyed by a renewed interest, new generations of mini instruments are being developed with improved functionality and durability. This study is an objective evaluation of a new set of mini instruments with a novel low-friction design.
methodTwenty-two medical students and 22 surgical residents served as study participants. Three designs of laparoscopic instruments were evaluated: conventional 5mm, traditional 3 mm, and low-friction 3 mm. The instruments were evaluated with a standard surgical simulator, emulating 4 exercises of various complexities, testing grasping, precise 2-handed movements, and suturing. The metric measured was time to task completion, with 5 replicates for every combination of instrument-exercise-participant.
resultsFor all 4 tasks, the instrument design that performed the best was the same in both the medical student and surgical resident groups. For the gross-grasping task, the 5-mm conventional instruments performed best, followed by the low-friction mini instruments. For the 3 more complex and precise tasks, the low-friction mini instruments outperformed both of the other instrument designs.
conclusionIn standard surgical simulator exercises,low-friction minilaparoscopic instruments outperformed both conventional 3- and 5-mm laparoscopic instruments for precise tasks.
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.