ArticleVeterinary sciences2020
Comparison of Laparoscopic Steerable Instruments Performed by Expert Surgeons and Novices.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of two cable configurations in 3D printed steerable instruments for minimally invasive surgery.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Evaluating the performance of a new ergonomic laparoscopic needle holder for intracorporeal suturing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Hand Motion and Peeling Force in Inner Limiting Membrane Peeling.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Two-Port Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy in Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Safe implementation of hand held steerable laparoscopic instruments: a survey among EAES surgeons.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) in Small Animals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Veterinary Literature.Veterinary sciences · 2021Review
- ArtiSentialChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As an alternative to the surgical robot, some medical companies have engineered new steerable devices that mimic the robot's capacities. This study aimed to assess how steerable instruments ameliorate the efficacy of suturing in comparison with the traditional instrument, and a combination instruments, performed by experienced and novice surgeons. The study was performed by three experienced surgeons and three novice surgeons. The instruments employed were divided into three surgical sets: two steerable dissectors; one steerable dissector and one straight needle; two straight needle holders. The study supervisor recorded the total time for the procedure, the number of bites completed, the time for each bite, and the quality of the procedure. In our study, we found consistent data demonstrating that experienced laparoscopists completed the prescribed suture pattern with more bites in less time than novices. The use of two steerable instruments was more time consuming than standard straight instruments, but a combination of instruments was significantly less time consuming, as was the use of two straight needle holders. This result was even observed in novice surgeons. Combining a steerable instrument with a traditional straight needle holder provided more advantages in this study.
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.