ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Task performance in standard laparoscopy in comparison with single-incision laparoscopy in a modified skills trainer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the Da Vinci® Single-Port system (DVSP) in the context of colorectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopy (SIL) is similar to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP), but carries specific technical challenges due to lack of triangulation, reduced dexterity, conflicts due to inline instrumentation, and impaired visualization. This study was designed to evaluate technical skill performance of SIL versus LAP surgery in a simulated environment.
methodsWe developed a modified laparoscopic skills trainer for SIL based upon the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) model. This includes a standard laparoscopic tower for visualization, allowing replication of the conflicts between scope and instruments. It also has a modified trainer box allowing use of different access devices and instruments for SIL. Sixteen subjects at different levels of training (novice through expert) completed four FLS tasks with standard LAP techniques. They then practiced the same tasks using SIL technique until they reached a steady state of performance. The first and last SIL trials were recorded.
resultsBaseline SIL peg transfer was worse than FLS (254 ± 157 s vs 99 ± 27, p < 0.0002). Final SIL time was still significantly worse than FLS (173 ± 130, p < 0.02). FLS, baseline SIL, and final SIL circle cutting were not significantly different (p = 0.058). Final SIL loop ligation was significantly faster than FLS (48 ± 19 vs 70 ± 42, p < 0.05). FLS suturing was faster than SIL suturing (281 ± 188 vs. 526 ± 105, p < 0.01). There was substantial dropout due to frustration with SIL, and only two surgeons were able to successfully complete SIL suturing.
conclusionsThere are technical challenges with SIL that vary depending on task. Peg transfer and suturing were significantly impaired in SIL, while circle cutting was not significantly affected, and ligating loop was faster with SIL than LAP. These challenges may impact clinical outcomes of SIL and should influence training in SIL as well as future product development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26823059What 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.