Trial reportPloS one2016
A "Smart" Force-Limiting Instrument for Microsurgery: Laboratory and In Vivo Validation.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation for skills training in neurosurgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and analysis of progressive scholarly acceptance.Neurosurgical review · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluating force and motion in posterior vitreous detachment manoeuvres using a robotic data acquisition system in cadaveric human eyes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Relaxation and Performance During Microsurgical Learning.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2025Article
- A Deep Learning Approach to Classify Surgical Skill in Microsurgery Using Force Data from a Novel Sensorised Surgical Glove.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Current and Future Advances in Surgical Therapy for Pituitary Adenoma.Endocrine reviews · 2023Article
- A Sensorised Surgical Glove to Analyze Forces During Neurosurgery.Neurosurgery · 2023Article
- A synthetic model simulator for intracranial aneurysm clipping: validation of the UpSurgeOn AneurysmBox.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Comparative Learning Curves of Microscope Versus Exoscope: A Preclinical Randomized Crossover Noninferiority Study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- A Force-Visualized Silicone Retractor Attachable to Surgical Suction Pipes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
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
Abstract
Residents are required to learn a multitude of skills during their microsurgical training. One such skill is the judicious application of force when handling delicate tissue. An instrument has been developed that indicates to the surgeon when a force threshold has been exceeded by providing vibrotactile feedback. The objective of this study was to validate the use of this "smart" force-limiting instrument for microsurgery. A laboratory and an in vivo experiment were performed to evaluate the force-limiting instrument. In the laboratory experiment, twelve novice surgeons were randomly allocated to use either the force-limiting instrument or a standard instrument. Surgeons were then asked to perform microsurgical dissection in a model. In the in vivo experiment, an intermediate surgeon performed microsurgical dissection in a stepwise fashion, alternating every 30 seconds between use of the force-limiting instrument and a standard instrument. The primary outcomes were the forces exerted and the OSATS scores. In the laboratory experiment, the maximal forces exerted by novices using the force-limiting instrument were significantly less than using a standard instrument, and were comparable to intermediate and expert surgeons (0.637N versus 4.576N; p = 0.007). In the in vivo experiment, the maximal forces exerted with the force-limiting instrument were also significantly less than with a standard instrument (0.441N versus 0.742N; p <0.001). Notably, use of the force-limiting instrument did not significantly impede the surgical workflow as measured by the OSATS score (p >0.1). In conclusion, the development and use of this force-limiting instrument in a clinical setting may improve patient safety.
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.