ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
KeyLoop retractor for global gasless laparoscopy: evaluation of safety and feasibility in a porcine model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany surgeons in low- and middle-income countries have described performing surgery using gasless (lift) laparoscopy due to inaccessibility of carbon dioxide and reliable electricity, but the safety and feasibility of the technique has not been well documented. We describe preclinical testing of the in vivo safety and utility of KeyLoop, a laparoscopic retractor system to enable gasless laparoscopy.
methodsExperienced laparoscopic surgeons completed a series of four laparoscopic tasks in a porcine model: laparoscopic exposure, small bowel resection, intracorporeal suturing with knot tying, and cholecystectomy. For each participating surgeon, the four tasks were completed in a practice animal using KeyLoop. Surgeons then completed these tasks using standard-of-care (SOC) gas laparoscopy and KeyLoop in block randomized order to minimize learning curve effect. Vital signs, task completion time, blood loss and surgical complications were compared between SOC and KeyLoop using paired nonparametric tests. Surgeons completed a survey on use of KeyLoop compared to gas laparoscopy. Abdominal wall tissue was evaluated for injury by a blinded pathologist.
resultsFive surgeons performed 60 tasks in 15 pigs. There were no significant differences in times to complete the tasks between KeyLoop and SOC. For all tasks, there was a learning curve with task completion times related to learning the porcine model. There were no significant differences in blood loss, vital signs or surgical complications between KeyLoop and SOC. Eleven surgeons from the United States and Singapore felt that KeyLoop could be used to safely perform several common surgical procedures. No abdominal wall tissue injury was observed for either KeyLoop or SOC.
conclusionsProcedure times, blood loss, abdominal wall tissue injury and surgical complications were similar between KeyLoop and SOC gas laparoscopy for basic surgical procedures. This data supports KeyLoop as a useful tool to increase access to laparoscopy in low- and middle-income countries.
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.