Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30953270›Full record

ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2019

Senhance 3-mm robot-assisted surgery: experience on first 14 patients in France.

J Montlouis-Calixte, B Ripamonti, G Barabino, T Corsini, Céline Chauleur

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Robotically Assisted Surgery in Children-A Perspective.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  8. First Pediatric Pyeloplasty Using the SenhanceChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Next-generation robotics in gastrointestinal surgery.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020
    Review
  13. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J Montlouis-CalixteDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, 42055, Saint-Étienne, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2405-0032
B RipamontiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, 42055, Saint-Étienne, France.
G BarabinoDepartment of General Surgery, University Hospital, 42023, Saint-Étienne, France.
T CorsiniDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, 42055, Saint-Étienne, France.
Céline ChauleurDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, 42055, Saint-Étienne, France. celine.chauleur@chu-st-etienne.fr.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Étienne · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this article is to present our experience with the 3-mm instruments using the Senhance surgical robotic system in gynecological and abdominal surgery from July to December 2017 by a retrospective observational study. All patients who underwent a robot-assisted 3-mm laparoscopic procedure with the Senhance surgical robotic system were enrolled. Two separate populations were involved: nine female gynecological patients and five digestive surgery patients. Five cholecystectomies, three annexectomies, four ovarian cystectomies, one myomectomy and one endometriotic nodule resection were performed. For the gynecological cases, the median time spent at the console was 37 min (12-77), while the total duration of the intervention was 81.33 min. All the interventions were performed on an outpatient basis. There were no postoperative complications. The average visual analog scale for pain (VAS) was 2.11 (± 1.91) on D0. For the abdominal surgery cases, the median time was 39 min (21-64). The average total duration of the intervention was 87.4 min (± 36.82). One of the five interventions was performed on an outpatient basis. There was one laparoscopy conversion. No postoperative complications in the 2 weeks following the operation. There are few 3-mm instruments available with the Senhance surgical robotic system, which limits the number of interventions. However, it is possible to perform gynecological interventions with 3-mm instruments on an outpatient basis in complete safety. It is possible to perform cholecystectomies by pairing the use of 3-mm and 5-mm instruments. The recent arrival of new 3-mm instruments will enable a wider range of surgical indications.

Indexed as

CholecystectomyDigestive System DiseasesFemaleFranceGenital Diseases, FemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresSafety3 mmCholecystectomyGynecologyRobot-assisted laparoscopySenhance surgical robotic system

Identifiers

PMID30953270
OpenAlexW2933495680

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.