ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Handheld robotic needle holder training: slower but better.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimising ergonomics in minimally invasive gynaecological surgery: a comprehensive review and practice recommendations.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Construct Validity of a Novel Assessment System for Laparoscopic Suture Accuracy Based on Stereoscopy.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHandheld robotic laparoscopic instruments fill the gap between robotic and conventional instruments, combining the advantages of degrees of freedom and low price. The difficulty and value in learning these new instruments require detailed investigation.
methodsForty novice surgeons with no laparoscopic experience were randomly assigned to two groups: conventional instrument group (Group Conv) and robotic instrument group (Group Rob). The same training protocol was used in both groups: after viewing a standard operation film, laparoscopic suture training was administered using the corresponding instruments. After each training period, surgeons were tested using a force-sensing test platform. Maximum force (MF) and impulse (IMP) of operators through each ring were recorded. Learning curves based on MF and IMP for both instruments were compared. Institutional review board approval is not needed for this study.
resultsMF and IMP of both groups decreased with increased training time; the learning curve of Group Conv decreased faster than that of Group Rob. When training time reached 13 h, the MF of Group Rob was significantly lower than that of Group Conv (P < 0.05), while IMP showed no significant difference between the two groups.
conclusionsEffective training reduces operator MF and IMP, possibly decreasing damage to tissues with both conventional and handheld robotic needle holders. Group Rob took longer to reach a plateau, but subsequently had lower suture tension than did Group Conv. MF is more sensitive than IMP for measuring performance progress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32514830What 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.