Observational studySurgical endoscopy2017
Surgical flow disturbances in dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites: an observational study to assess its supposed superiority over conventional suites.
Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using flow disruptions to understand healthcare system safety: A systematic review of observational studies.Applied ergonomics · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Adverse events and device malfunctions in robotic thyroidectomy: a decade-long analysis of the MAUDE database.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Automatic gesture recognition and evaluation in peg transfer tasks of laparoscopic surgery training.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Preparing surgeons for the modern operating theatre: insights from a national survey on technology use and readiness.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Deep learning for surgical phase recognition using endoscopic videos.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Non-technical skills and device-related interruptions in minimally invasive surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Classification strategies for non-routine events occurring in high-risk patient care settings: A scoping review.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Eye-Tracking Metrics Predict Perceived Workload in Robotic Surgical Skills Training.Human factors · 2020Article
- Article
- Legal perspectives on black box recording devices in the operating environment.The British journal of surgery · 2019Review
- Tasks, multitasking and interruptions among the surgical team in an operating room: a prospective observational study.BMJ open · 2019Observational
- Surgical phase modelling in minimal invasive surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Characterization of device-related interruptions in minimally invasive surgery: need for intraoperative data and effective mitigation strategies.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Measuring surgical safety during minimally invasive surgical procedures: a validation study.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) is frequently compromised by surgical flow disturbances due to technology- and equipment-related failures. Compared with MIS in a conventional cart-based OR, performing MIS in a dedicated integrated operating room (OR) is supposed to be beneficial to patient safety. The aim of this study was to compare a conventional OR with an integrated OR with regard to the incidence and effect of equipment-related surgical flow disturbances during an advanced laparoscopic gynecological procedure [laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH)].
methodsUsing video recording, 40 LHs performed between November 2010 and April 2012 (20 in a conventional cart-based OR and 20 in an integrated OR) were analyzed by two different observers. Outcome measures were the number, duration and effect (on a seven-point ordinal scale) of the surgical flow disturbances (e.g., malfunctioning, intraoperative repositioning, setup device).
resultsA total of 103 h and 45 min was observed. The interobserver agreement was high (kappa .85, p < .001). Procedure time was not significantly different (NS) [conventional OR vs. integrated OR, minutes ± standard deviation (SD), mean 161 ± 27 vs. 150 ± 34]. A total of 1651 surgical flow disturbances were observed (mean ± SD per procedure 40.8 ± 19.4 vs. 41.8 ± 15.9, NS). The mean number of surgical flow disturbances per procedure with regard to equipment was 6.3 ± 3.7 versus 8.5 ± 4.0, NS. No clinically relevant differences in the mean effect of these disturbances on the surgical flow between the two OR setups were observed.
conclusionsPerforming LH in an integrated OR did not reduce the number of surgical flow disturbances nor the effect of these disturbances. Furthermore, in the integrated OR, repositioning of the monitors was a frequent and time-consuming source of disturbance. In order to maintain the high standard of surgical safety, the entire surgical team has to be aware that by performing surgery in an integrated OR different potential source for disruption arise.
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.