Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30515610›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2019

The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018.

Alberto Arezzo, Nereo Vettoretto, Nader K Francis, Marco Augusto Bonino, Nathan J Curtis, Daniele Amparore, Simone Arolfo, Manuel Barberio, Luigi Boni, Ronit Brodie and 21 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Three-dimensionalIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

31 authors.

Alberto ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Torino, Italy. alberto.arezzo@unito.it.ORCID 0000-0002-2110-4082
Nereo VettorettoMontichiari Surgery, ASST Spedali Civili Brescia, Montichiari, Italy.
Nader K FrancisDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
Marco Augusto BoninoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Torino, Italy.
Nathan J CurtisDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
Daniele AmparoreDivision of Urology, ESUT Research Group, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Torino, Italy.
Simone ArolfoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Torino, Italy.
Manuel BarberioIRCAD, Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Luigi BoniDepartment of Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Policlinico Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Ronit BrodieDepartment of Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Nicole BouvyDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Elisa CassinottiDepartment of Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Policlinico Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Thomas CarusDepartment of Surgery, Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Asklepios Westklinikum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Enrico CheccucciDivision of Urology, ESUT Research Group, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Torino, Italy.
Petra CustersDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Michele DianaIRCAD, Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Marilou JansenDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joris JaspersDepartment of Medical Technology and Clinical Physics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gadi MaromDepartment of Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Kota MomoseDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Beat P Müller-StichGeneral-, Visceral-and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kyokazu NakajimaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Felix NickelGeneral-, Visceral-and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Silvana PerrettaIRCAD, Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Francesco PorpigliaDivision of Urology, ESUT Research Group, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Torino, Italy.
Francisco Sánchez-MargalloJesús Usón Minimally Invasive Surgery Centre, Cáceres, Spain.
Juan A Sánchez-MargalloJesús Usón Minimally Invasive Surgery Centre, Cáceres, Spain.
Marlies SchijvenDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gianfranco SilecchiaDepartment of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Roberto PasseraDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Torino, Italy.
Yoav MintzDepartment of Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of 3D laparoscopic systems is expanding. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference with the aim of creating evidence-based statements and recommendations for the surgical community.

methodsSystematic reviews of the PubMed and Embase libraries were performed to identify evidence on potential benefits of 3D on clinical practice and patient outcomes. Statements and recommendations were prepared and unanimously agreed by an international surgical and engineering expert panel which were presented and voted at the EAES annual congress, London, May 2018.

results9967 abstracts were screened with 138 articles included. 18 statements and two recommendations were generated and approved. 3D significantly shortened operative time (mean difference 11 min (8% [95% CI 20.29-1.72], I

conclusionWe recommend the use of 3D vision in laparoscopy to reduce the operative time (grade of recommendation: low). Future robust clinical research is required to specifically investigate the potential benefit of 3D laparoscopy system on complication rates (grade of recommendation: high).

Indexed as

Consensus Statements as TopicImaging, Three-DimensionalSocieties, MedicalEuropeHumansLaparoscopySurgery, Computer-Assisted3D laparoscopy3D visionConsensusImagingLaparoscopicThree-dimensional

Identifiers

PMID30515610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.