ArticleObesity surgery2021
Comparison of Conventional Methods for Bowel Length Measurement in Laparoscopic Surgery to a Novel Computer-Assisted 3D Measurement System.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small Intestine Length Measurement Using 3D CT Volumetry and in Vivo Laparoscopic Measurement Using Pre-marked Graspers: A Comparative Study.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Development of an artificial intelligence based virtual tool for measuring distances during image-guided surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Revisional surgery for malnutrition after SADI-S: prevalence, indications, techniques and outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Measuring Small Bowel Length in Bariatric Surgery: An Ex Vivo Laparoscopic Training Experiment.Surgical innovation · 2024Article
- Length of intraabdominal measurement of bowel (LIMB).Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic Small Bowel Length Measurement in Bariatric Surgery Using a Hand-Over-Hand Technique with Marked Graspers: an Ex Vivo Experiment.Obesity surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate laparoscopic bowel length measurement (LBLM), which is used primarily in metabolic surgery, remains a challenge. This study aims to three conventional methods for LBLM, namely using visual judgment (VJ), instrument markings (IM), or premeasured tape (PT) to a novel computer-assisted 3D measurement system (BMS). MATERIALS AND
methodsLBLM methods were compared using a 3D laparoscope on bowel phantoms regarding accuracy (relative error in percent, %), time in seconds (s), and number of bowel grasps. Seventy centimeters were measured seven times. As a control, the first, third, fifth, and seventh measurements were performed with VJ. The interventions IM, PT, and BMS were performed following a randomized order as the second, fourth, and sixth measurements.
resultsIn total, 63 people participated. BMS showed better accuracy (2.1±3.7%) compared to VJ (8.7±13.7%, p=0.001), PT (4.3±6.8%, p=0.002), and IM (11±15.3%, p<0.001). Participants performed LBLM in a similar amount of time with BMS (175.7±59.7s) and PT (166.5±63.6s, p=0.35), but VJ (64.0±24.0s, p<0.001) and IM (144.9±55.4s, p=0.002) were faster. Number of bowel grasps as a measure for the risk of bowel lesions was similar for BMS (15.8±3.0) and PT (15.9±4.6, p=0.861), whereas VJ required less (14.1±3.4, p=0.004) and IM required more than BMS (22.2±6.9, p<0.001).
conclusionsPT had higher accuracy than VJ and IM, and lower number of bowel grasps than IM. BMS shows great potential for more reliable LBLM. Until BMS is available in clinical routine, PT should be preferred for LBLM.
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.