Trial reportBMC surgery2022
Endoscopic surgery suturing techniques: a randomized study on learning.
Trial report in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does laparoscopic experience affect the acquisition of initial robotic skills? A systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Learning curve of totally robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in early-career surgeons: a dual analysis using CUSUM and moving average.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A review of wrist mechanism design and the application in gastrointestinal minimally invasive surgery of multi-degree-of-freedom surgical laparoscopic instruments.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgeons have widely adopted endoscopic suturing techniques using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the more advanced robotic systems. The FlexDex is a novel articulating laparoscopic needle driver providing enhanced dexterity in laparoscopic surgery. This study evaluates and compares the learning curve of endoscopic suturing with conventional laparoscopy, the FlexDex and robotic suturing in novices.
methodsParticipants performed a minimal invasive suturing task in three different ways in a randomized order: with a conventional laparoscopic needle driver, using the FlexDex needle driver and third, using the Da Vinci Si surgical system. Primary outcome was suturing task time. Secondary outcome parameters were assessment of suturing quality and workload perception.
resultsA total of 10 novice participants were included and completed a total of 300 sessions. Median (IQR) suturing time of the first 5 sessions was 231 s (188-291) in the laparoscopic group versus 378 s (282-471) in the FlexDex group versus 189 s (160-247) in the DaVinci Si group. The last 5 sessions showed significant reduction of median suturing time of 143 s (120-190), 232 s (180-265) and 172 s (134-199) respectively. Analysis identified that the learning curve for the laparoscopic needle driver and Da Vinci Si was reached in 5 sessions, compared to 8 sessions for the Flexdex. The laparoscopic needle driver and Da Vinci Si showed a significant shorter median suturing time compared to the FlexDex (p = 0.00). The FlexDex quality assessment scores were significantly lower compared to the laparoscopic (p = 0.00) and robotic (p = 0.00) scores and perceived workload remains high for the FlexDex users.
conclusionsEx vivo endoscopic suturing with the FlexDex demonstrated a prolonged learning curve compared to laparoscopic and robotic suturing. The learning curve of the FlexDex is fundamentally different from conventional laparoscopic and robotic instruments. This study provides further insights in the implementation and training of endoscopic suturing techniques.
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.