ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Randomized controlled trial of EndoWrist-enabled robotic versus human laparoendoscopic single-site access surgery (LESS) in the porcine model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery in children with congenital lung disease: advancements, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- A novel gaze-controlled flexible robotized endoscope; preliminary trial and report.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Non-Technical Skill Assessment and Mental Load Evaluation in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA robotic laparoendoscopic single-site access surgery (R-LESS) platform that incorporates the EndoWrist function of robotic instruments may provide better triangulation and retraction during LESS. The aim of the study is to assess if R-LESS is feasible with standard robotic instruments via a single incision and whether the approach could reduce the difficulty of the procedure and confer additional benefits over conventional LESS.
methodsThis was a prospective randomized controlled study investigating the workload performance, efficacy, and risks of performing R-LESS when compared with human LESS (H-LESS) in a survival porcine model for cholecystectomy and gastrojejunostomy. The primary outcome is the NASA task load index. Secondary outcomes included the difficulty of the procedures, procedural time, morbidities, and mortalities.
resultsTwenty-four cholecystectomies and gastrojejunostomies using the R-LESS or H-LESS approach (12:12) were performed. None of the swine suffered from procedural adverse events and none of the procedures required conversion. In both the cholecystectomy and gastrojejunostomy groups, R-LESS was associated with significantly lower NASA task load index (P < 0.001) and reduced difficulties in various steps of the procedures. No differences in the overall procedure times of the two procedures were observed (P = 0.315).
conclusionThe R-LESS approach significantly reduced the workload and difficulties of LESS cholecystectomies and gastrojejunostomies. A dedicated single-site platform that could reduce instrument clashing while retaining the EndoWrist function is eagerly awaited.
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.