ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2017
Initial experience using a robotic-driven laparoscopic needle holder with ergonomic handle: assessment of surgeons' task performance and ergonomics.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ergonomic evaluation of a novel suturing device (SutureTOOL) versus traditional needle-driver for aponeurotic closure: a randomized experimental study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Trial
- Robotic Handle Prototypes for Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery: Pre-clinical Randomised Controlled Trial of Performance and Ergonomics.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of new motorized articulating laparoscopic instruments by laparoscopic novices using a standardized laparoscopic skills curriculum.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- Development of a master-slave isomorphic modular handheld electric robotic prototype for laparoscopic surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison between a laparoscopic articulating needle driver with standard laparoscopic instrumentation for total laparoscopic gastropexy in dogs.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Article
- Applying artificial intelligence on EDA sensor data to predict stress on minimally invasive robotic-assisted surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024Article
- Bedside Admittance Control of a Dual-Segment Soft Robot for Catheter-Based Interventions.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2024Article
- Review
- Safe implementation of hand held steerable laparoscopic instruments: a survey among EAES surgeons.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Recent Technical Developments in the Field of Laparoscopic Surgery: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2022Review
- Handheld robotic needle holder training: slower but better.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Handheld laparoscopic robotized instrument: progress or challenge?Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study is to assess the surgeons' performance and ergonomics during the use of a robotic-driven needle holder in laparoscopic suturing tasks.
methodsSix right-handed laparoscopic surgeons with different levels of experience took part in this study. Participants performed a set of three different intracorporeal suturing tasks organized in ten trials during a period of five weeks. Surgeons used both conventional (Conv) and robotic (Rob) laparoscopic needle holders. Precision using the surgical needle, quality of the intracorporeal suturing performance, execution time and leakage pressure for the urethrovesical anastomosis, as well as the ergonomics of the surgeon's hand posture, were analyzed during the first, fifth and last trials.
resultsNo statistically significant differences in precision and quality of suturing performance were obtained between both groups of instruments. Surgeons required more time using the robotic instrument than using the conventional needle holder to perform the urethrovesical anastomosis, but execution time was significantly reduced after training ([Formula: see text] 0.05). There were no differences in leakage pressure for the anastomoses carried out by both instruments. After training, novice surgeons significantly improved the ergonomics of the wrist ([Formula: see text] 0.05) and index finger (Conv: 36.381[Formula: see text], Rob: 30.389[Formula: see text]; p = 0.024) when using the robotic instrument compared to the conventional needle holder.
conclusionsResults have shown that, although both instruments offer similar technical performance, the robotic-driven instrument results in better ergonomics for the surgeon's hand posture compared to the use of a conventional laparoscopic needle holder in intracorporeal suturing.
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.