Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32239306›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020

Cognitive load in 3d and 2d minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

M Inama, G Spolverato, H Impellizzeri, M Bacchion, M Creciun, A Casaril, G Moretto

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A scoping review of cognitive load assessment tools suitable for clinicians performing REBOA.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. 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

7 authors.

M InamaGeneral and Mininvasive Surgery Department, Pederzoli Hospital, Via Monte Baldo 24, Peschiera del Garda, 37019, Verona, Italy. inama.marco@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5577-7699
G SpolveratoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
H ImpellizzeriGeneral and Mininvasive Surgery Department, Pederzoli Hospital, Via Monte Baldo 24, Peschiera del Garda, 37019, Verona, Italy.
M BacchionGeneral and Mininvasive Surgery Department, Pederzoli Hospital, Via Monte Baldo 24, Peschiera del Garda, 37019, Verona, Italy.
M CreciunGeneral and Mininvasive Surgery Department, Pederzoli Hospital, Via Monte Baldo 24, Peschiera del Garda, 37019, Verona, Italy.
A CasarilGeneral and Mininvasive Surgery Department, Pederzoli Hospital, Via Monte Baldo 24, Peschiera del Garda, 37019, Verona, Italy.
G MorettoGeneral and Mininvasive Surgery Department, Pederzoli Hospital, Via Monte Baldo 24, Peschiera del Garda, 37019, Verona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThree-dimensional (3d) laparoscopy has been introduced to enhance depth perception and facilitate surgical operations. The aim of this study was to compare cognitive load during 3d and 2d laparoscopic procedures.

methodsTwo subjective questionnaires (the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire and the NASA task load index) were used to prospectively collect data regarding cognitive load in surgeons performing 2d and 3d laparoscopic colorectal resections. Moreover, the perioperative results of 3d and 2d laparoscopic operations were analyzed.

resultsA total of 313 patients were included: 82 in the 2d group and 231 in the 3d group. The NASA TLX results did not reveal significantly major cognitive load differences in the 3d group compared with the 2d group; the SSQ results were better in the 3d group than in the 2d group in terms of general discomfort, whereas difficulty concentrating, difficulty focusing, and fatigue were more frequent in 3d operations than in 2d operations (p = 0.001-0.038). The results of age, sex, and ASA score were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.299-0.374). The median operative time showed no statistically significant difference between the 3d and 2d groups (median, IQR, 2d 150 min [120-180]-3d 160 min [130-190] p = 0.611). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of severe complications between patients in the 3d group and in the 2d group (2d 7 [8.54%] vs 3d 21 [9.1%], p = 0.271). The median hospitalization time and the reoperation rate showed no difference between the 2d and 3d operations (p = 0.417-0.843).

conclusionThe NASA TLX did not reveal a significant difference in cognitive load between the 2d and 3d groups, whereas data reported by the SSQ showed a mild risk of cognitive load in the 3d group. Furthermore, 3d laparoscopic surgery revealed the same postoperative results as 2d standard laparoscopy.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalAdultCognitionColorectal SurgeryDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeProspective StudiesSurgeonsSurgery, Computer-AssistedWorkload3d technologyCognitive loadColorectal resectionLaparoscopy

Identifiers

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.