Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2020
The impact of guided instrument insertion during laparoscopy: a randomized study with novices in an optical box trainer.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. 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.
- Article
- Soft Liver Phantom with a Hollow Biliary System.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2021Article
- Investigation of the Effect of Puncture Order and Position on the Difficulty of Lower and Middle Abdominal Port Placement.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring laparoscopic operations, the trocars are often out of the viewing field of the laparoscope. Blind insertion of laparoscopic instruments is potentially dangerous especially when they are pointed or hot. A guidance of the instrument to the target point has the potential to improve the safety of instrument insertion.
methodsIn this study, the effect of a mechanical and an optical tool for guided instrument insertion into the abdominal cave was evaluated. The controlled prospective randomized study measured safety and efficiency of instrument insertion by 60 novices in an inanimate standardized box trainer. A post-test questionnaire based on the NASA Task Load Index prompted for the subjective impressions of the subjects.
resultsInstrument insertion with optical guidance showed a shorter (p = 0.002) insertion time (median 87.5 s for nine insertions) compared with blind insertion (median 112.0 s for nine insertions). The error number with optical guidance (median 0.5) was lower (p = 0.064) compared with blind insertion (median 1.0). The mechanical guidance showed a shorter (p = 0.001) insertion time (median 89.0 s for nine insertions) and less (p = 0.044) touch errors (median 0) compared with blind insertion. The results of the two guidance tools (mechanical vs. optical guidance) showed no significant difference. In the questionnaire, 89% of the novices subjectively judged the mechanical guidance tool better than blind insertion. The assessments of optical compared to mechanical guidance turned out quite similar.
conclusionsIn the experimental setup, instrument insertion with a guidance tool performed faster and safer compared with blind insertion. The subjective assessments confirmed the benefit of instrument guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31114950What 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.