ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Handheld laparoscopic robotized instrument: progress or challenge?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic Handle Prototypes for Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery: Pre-clinical Randomised Controlled Trial of Performance and Ergonomics.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2022Trial
- Handheld robotic device for endoscopic neurosurgery: system integration and pre-clinical evaluation.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
- Construct Validity of a Novel Assessment System for Laparoscopic Suture Accuracy Based on Stereoscopy.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Handheld robotic needle holder training: slower but better.Surgical endoscopy · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHandheld laparoscopic robotized instruments have been developed to combine the advantages of a robotic operation system and conventional laparoscopic instruments. Direct objective standards are needed to quantify surgeons' skill level and validate the advantages of new instruments. This study describes and objectively evaluates the use of a robotized instrument using a force-sensing test platform.
methodsThe test platform consists of 12 rings on a hypersensitive force sensor. Forty volunteers were recruited: the expert group included 20 laparoscopic experts and the novice group included 20 medical students in their 4th year without laparoscopic skills. The baseline of the two groups was identified using a conventional needle holder. Participants then repeated the test with the robotized needle holder after training. The maximum force and impulse of each ring were analyzed for each group. Institutional review board approval is not needed for this study.
resultsSignificantly lower maximum force and impulse were observed in the expert group than in the novice group during the baseline test (all P < 0.05). After training, a significant difference remained in maximum force and impulse between the two groups using the robotized needle holder (all P < 0.05). Within each group, there was no difference in maximum force or impulse using the robotized needle holder after training compared to that on using the conventional needle holder (all P > 0.05).
conclusionsThe maximum force and impulse recorded by a test platform can accurately identify participants' laparoscopic skill level. Six hours' training can ensure that experts master the use of the robotized needle holder, but this training session is too short for novices to improve their performance with a new instrument. The force-sensing test platform can reflect the suturing characteristics of users based on the skill level and is useful for laparoscopic suture training.
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.