Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33426624›Full record

ArticleSurgery today2021

Experimental evaluation of the fineness of needle forceps: advantages other than minimal access.

Kenta Doden, Noriyuki Inaki, Toshikatsu Tsuji

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kenta DodenDepartment of Surgery, Yokohama Sakae Kyosai Hospital, 132 Katsuramachi, Yokohama, 247-8581, Japan.
Noriyuki InakiDepartment of Surgery, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, 2-1-1 Tomioka, Urayasu, Chiba, 279-0021, Japan. n.inaki@viola.ocn.ne.jp.
Toshikatsu TsujiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, 2-1 Kuratsuki-higashi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8530, Japan.
Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital · JPJuntendo University Urayasu Hospital · JPYokohama Sakae Kyosai Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNeedle forceps are used to limit damage to the abdominal wall in endoscopic surgery; however, few experimental studies have evaluated the fineness and performance of needle forceps. We conducted this study to identify the advantages of needle forceps over conventional 5 mm forceps, focusing on fine grasping and needle control.

methodsTwenty physicians executed tasks using 5 mm forceps and 2.1 mm small diameter forceps in a laparoscopic experimental setting. First, we timed the execution and recorded the number of drops in a task of grasping and moving grains of rice and red beans. Next, we measured the execution time, looseness of the knot, and the deviation from the stitching point in a suture and ligation task using suture needles with a diameter of 17 or 26 mm.

resultsThe needle forceps required a significantly shorter execution time to move the rice grains (37.7 s vs. 45.8 s; p = 0.01) and a significantly higher completion rate (90% vs 20%; p < 0.01). The deviation of the stitching point using the 17 mm needle with needle forceps was significantly smaller than with the 5 mm forceps (0.5 mm vs. 1.0 mm; p < 0.01).

conclusionNeedle forceps are better for procedures requiring fine grasping and enable more accurate small diameter needle control than 5 mm forceps.

Indexed as

Surgical InstrumentsHumansLaparoscopyOperative TimeQuality of Health CareSuture TechniquesErgonomicsLaparoscopyNeedlescopic surgeryReduced port surgeryTask performance

Identifiers

PMID33426624
OpenAlexW3119168109

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.