Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2021
Evaluation of new motorized articulating laparoscopic instruments by laparoscopic novices using a standardized laparoscopic skills curriculum.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of learning curves and cross-over effects using articulating laparoscopic instruments versus standard laparoscopic instruments.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Comparison of two cable configurations in 3D printed steerable instruments for minimally invasive surgery.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Comparison between a laparoscopic articulating needle driver with standard laparoscopic instrumentation for total laparoscopic gastropexy in dogs.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Article
- Early-phase laparoscopic skill acquisition in veterinary students: impact of 2D/3D vision and conventional/articulating instruments.Irish veterinary journal · 2025Article
- A deflectable video camera system for laparoscopic surgery based on shape memory alloy actuators.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of the European Laparoscopic Intermediate Urological Skills LUSs2 Curriculum: A Delphi Consensus from the European School of Urology.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Safe implementation of hand held steerable laparoscopic instruments: a survey among EAES surgeons.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Assessment of an Articulating Laparoscopic Needle Holder (FlexDex™) Compared to a Conventional Rigid Needle Holder in 2-Dimension Vision Amongst Novices: A Randomised Controlled Study.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Advances and Trends in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMotorized articulating laparoscopic instruments (ALI) offer more degrees of freedom than conventional laparoscopic instruments (CLI). However, a difficult learning curve and complex instrument handling are still a problem of ALI. We compared the performance of new prototypes of motorized ALI with CLI in a series of standardized laparoscopic tasks performed by laparoscopic novices. Further, usability of the new ALI was assessed.
methodsA randomized cross-over study with 50 laparoscopic novices who either started with CLI and then changed to ALI (CA) or vice versa (AC) was conducted. All participants performed the European training in basic laparoscopic urological skills (E-BLUS) with each instrument in given order. Time and errors were measured for each exercise. Instrument usability was assessed.
resultsOverall, using CLI was significantly faster (CLI 4:27 min vs. ALI 4:50 min; p-value 0.005) and associated with fewer exercise failures in needle guidance (CLI 0 vs. ALI 12; p-value 0.0005) than ALI. Median amount of errors was similar for both instruments. Instrument sequence did not matter, as CA and AC showed comparable completion times. Regarding the learning effect, participants were significantly faster in the second attempt of exercises than in the first. In the needle guidance task, participants using CLI last demonstrated a significant speed improvement, whereas ALI were significantly slower in the second run. Regarding usability, CLI were preferred over ALI due to lighter weight and easier handling. Nevertheless, participants valued ALI's additional degrees of freedom.
conclusionUsing new motorized ALI in the E-BLUS examination by laparoscopic novices led to a worse performance compared to CLI. An explanation could be that participants felt overwhelmed by ALI and that ALI have an own distinct learning curve. As participants valued ALI's additional degrees of freedom, however, a future application of ALI could be for training purposes, ideally in combination with CLI.
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.