Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2017
Laser visual guidance versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of measurement tools to assess surgeons' intraoperative cognitive workload.The British journal of surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Multi-angle laser device improves novice learning of C-arm fluoroscopy for lumbar spine surgery.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Image-guided minimally invasive endopancreatic surgery using a computer-assisted navigation system.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring laparoscopy, the surgeon's loss of depth perception and spatial orientation is problematic. Laser visual guidance (LVG) is an innovative technology that improves depth perception to enhance the visual field. In this trial, we examined the effect of LVG on surgical novices' motor skills, quality of task performance, and cognitive workload.
methodsWe designed a randomized controlled trial following the CONSORT statement. Thirty-two surgical novices completed the Training and Assessment of Basic Laparoscopic Techniques (TABLT) test. The first attempt allowed participants to familiarize themselves with the exercises. We then randomized the participants, and they completed a test session using either LVG or conventional two-dimensional vision.
resultsWe found no significant difference between using the LVG tool and conventional 2D vision; however, both the mean completion time and movements used were less in the LVG group: Mean time used in the LVG group was 1288 s (95 % CI 1188-1388) versus 1354 s (95 % CI 1190-1518) (p = 0.45); mean angular path length used in the LVG group was 24,049° (95 % CI 20,761-27,336) versus 26,014° (95 % CI 22,059-29,970) (p = 0.42); mean path length in the LVG group was 4560 cm (95 % CI 3971-5,149 cm) versus 5062 cm (95 % CI 4328-5797), (p = 0.26). Moreover, the mean TABLT performance score was higher in the LVG group compared with the 2D group, although not significant: 379 (95 % CI 352-405) versus 338 (95 % CI 288-387) (p = 0.14). No significant difference was found between the groups' cognitive workloads.
conclusionWe found no significant improvement of laparoscopic motor skills when using LVG, although a tendency toward improved performance was seen. LVG could have the potential to help novice surgeons acquire basic laparoscopic; however, further development of the concept and validation is needed to confirm this.
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.