Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27622693›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

A "Smart" Force-Limiting Instrument for Microsurgery: Laboratory and In Vivo Validation.

Hani J Marcus, Christopher J Payne, Ahilan Kailaya-Vasa, Sara Griffiths, James Clark, Guang-Zhong Yang, Ara Darzi, Dipankar Nandi

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Relaxation and Performance During Microsurgical Learning.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hani J MarcusThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8000-392X
Christopher J PayneThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ahilan Kailaya-VasaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Essex, United Kingdom.
Sara GriffithsThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
James ClarkThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Guang-Zhong YangThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ara DarziThe Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Dipankar NandiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBBarking, Havering And Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701698
6 · The paper itself

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

Surgical InstrumentsAdultDissectionFeedbackFemaleHumansMaleMicrosurgeryStress, MechanicalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27622693
PMCPMC5021258
OpenAlexW2520543337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.