ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2019
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®): retrospective comparative study with human assistant.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical advantages of a new collaborative assistant robot (ANSUR surgical unit) in laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Application and advantages of a joystick-controlled robotic scope holder in transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach: a comparative study.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Usefulness of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using the Endoscope Manipulator Robot (EMARO).Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- A registry-based 2-year follow-up comparative study of two meshes used in transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) groin hernia repair.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
methodsAmong 182 inguinal hernia patients treated by laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair, 82 cases were completed with a human scope assistant, while Soloassist was used in 100 cases. We retrospectively compared perioperative results of Soloassist group and human scope assistant group. In 139 unilateral cases, we also used logistic regression of perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.
resultsAll operations with Soloassist were carried out laparoscopically as solo-surgery without any system-specific complications. A statistically significant decrease in operation time was observed in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group (93.6 vs 85.9 min, p = 0.05). There was no prolongation of preoperative time or difference in the amount of intraoperative blood loss. Operation time was also significantly shorter in Soloassist group, when analyzing unilateral cases (85.5 vs 76.3 min, p = 0.02) and bilateral cases (126.9 vs 111.8 min, p = 0.01), independently. However, after propensity score matching in unilateral cases, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (83.8 vs 77.2 min, p = 0.23).
conclusionsThe feasibility of Soloassist in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was demonstrated with no adverse device-related events. All surgeries could be completed as solo-surgery, while no additional time for preoperative setting was required. The mean operation time tends to be shorter in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group. Soloassist could be an effective device in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31129765What 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.