Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27317031›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Face validity of the pulsatile organ perfusion trainer for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Felix Nickel, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Florian Rehberger, Jonathan David Hendrie, Benjamin Friedrich Berthold Mayer, Hannes Götz Kenngott, Vasile Bintintan, Georg Richard Linke, Lars Fischer, Beat Peter Müller-Stich

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Comparison of 3D-Printed Patient Model Versus Animal Cadaveric Model in Periodontal Surgery Block Course-What Is More Feasible for Beginners? A Pilot Study.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Felix NickelDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Florian RehbergerDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jonathan David HendrieDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Benjamin Friedrich Berthold MayerDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hannes Götz KenngottDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Vasile BintintanDepartment of Surgery, 1st Surgical Clinic, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Georg Richard LinkeDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lars FischerDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Beat Peter Müller-StichDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. beat.mueller@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe pulsatile organ perfusion (POP) trainer provides training of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with real instruments and cadaveric organs. It provides training of full procedures with simulation of bleeding. Although widely used, the face validity has not yet been evaluated. This study aimed to establish face validity of the POP trainer for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and its usefulness compared with other training modalities. MATERIALS AND

methodsDuring MIS courses, the participants (n = 52) used the POP trainer to perform LC. Face validity was assessed with questionnaires for realism and usefulness on a five-point Likert scale. Participants were divided into two groups: experts (n = 15) who had performed more than 50 laparoscopic procedures and novices (n = 37) with less than 50 procedures. Secondary aims included the ranking of training modalities, as well as exploration of their specific advantages and disadvantages.

resultsThe POP trainer was found to be realistic (3.8 ± 0.9) and useful (4.6 ± 0.9). Differences between experts and novices were only found for "The training modality resembles reality" (3.1 ± 0.8 vs. 3.8 ± 0.7; p = 0.010), "The operation on the POP trainer is realistic" (3.4 ± 1.1 vs. 4.5 ± 0.8; p = 0.003), and "It would be desirable to have a POP trainer at my own hospital" (4.2 ± 1.1 vs. 4.8 ± 0.8; p = 0.040). In the ranking, the animal training (1.1 ± 0.3) placed first, the POP trainer (2.3 ± 0.9) second, and the VR trainer (2.8 ± 0.9) and box trainer (2.8 ± 1.1) third. The realistic simulation of animal training was named as an advantage most often, while the unrealistic simulation of the VR trainer was the most often named disadvantage.

conclusionsThe POP trainer was rated a highly realistic and useful training modality with face validity for LC. Differences between experts and novices existed concerning realism and desirability. Future studies should evaluate the POP trainer for more advanced surgical procedures. The POP trainer widens the spectrum of modalities for training of MIS in a safe environment outside the operating room.

Indexed as

Models, AnatomicAdultCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSimulation TrainingYoung AdultCholecystectomyEducationLaparoscopyMinimally invasive surgerySimulationTraining

Identifiers

PMID27317031
OpenAlexW2420413928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.