Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34433462›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2021

Comparison of a single-access glove port with a SILS™ port in a surgical simulator model using MISTELS.

Ulrike Strohmeier, Gilles Dupré, Barbara Bockstahler, Alexander Tichy, Lea Liehmann

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ulrike StrohmeierDepartment of Small Animal Surgery, Ophthalmology, Dentistry and Physiotherapy, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria. ulrike.strohmeier@vetmeduni.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5688-4808
Gilles DupréDepartment of Small Animal Surgery, Ophthalmology, Dentistry and Physiotherapy, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Barbara BockstahlerDepartment of Small Animal Surgery, Ophthalmology, Dentistry and Physiotherapy, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Alexander TichyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Platform Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Lea LiehmannDepartment of Small Animal Surgery, Ophthalmology, Dentistry and Physiotherapy, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in laparoscopy both in human and veterinary medicine have looked at means of being less invasive by using single-port access surgery as opposed to multiport access surgery. The glove port has gained popularity as a cost-effective alternative to commercially available single-port access devices. The primary aim of this study was to compare the glove port to the SILS™ port in a simulator model using the first two MISTELS (McGill inanimate system for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills) tasks (peg transfer and pattern cutting).

methodsTwenty-two novices were enrolled in this experimental study. Each participant had 60 min to practise both MISTELS tasks using two-port laparoscopy. Thereafter participants performed both tasks using the glove and SILS™ port with scores being calculated based on task completion time and errors. Higher scores were indicative of better performance. Participants were assigned into two groups with the starting order of the single ports being randomly selected. A self-evaluation questionnaire with three questions was completed by each participant after testing, rating each port.

resultsSignificantly (p < 0.05) higher scores were achieved using the glove port compared to the SILS™ port when performing both tasks. The glove port was subjectively evaluated as easier to use with more manoeuvrability of the instruments than the SILS™ port. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY: The glove port's improved manoeuvrability and ease of use make it a cost-effective alternative to the SILS™ port, for use in single-port laparoscopic veterinary surgery.

Indexed as

AnimalsEducation, VeterinaryFemaleHumansLaparoscopesLaparoscopyMaleModels, AnatomicTask Performance and AnalysisGlove portLaparoscopyMISTELSSILS™ portSimulationSingle port

Identifiers

PMID34433462
PMCPMC8390292
OpenAlexW3195439234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.