ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Comparative study of video recordings of non-medical devices in laparoscopic surgery: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of a simulation-based laparoscopic ventral rectopexy module: skills training for minimally invasive pelvic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
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
introductionLaparoscopic surgery is the approach of choice for multiple procedures, being laparoscopic cholecystectomy one of the most frequently performed surgeries. Likewise, video recording of these surgeries has become widespread. Currently, the market offers medical recording devices (MRD) with an approximate cost of 2000 USD, and alternative non-medical recording devices (NMRD) with a cost ranging from 120 to 200 USD. To our knowledge, no comparative studies between the available recording devices have been done. We aim to compare the perception of the quality of videos recorded by MRD and NMRD in a group of surgeons and surgical residents.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey to compare recordings from three NMRDs (Elgato 30 fps, AverMedia 60 fps, Hauppauge 30 fps) and one MRD (MediCap 20 fps) during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The survey assessed: definition of anatomical structures (DA), fluidity of movements (FM), similarity with the operating room screen (ORsim), and overall quality (OQ). Descriptive and nonparametric analytical statistics tests were applied. Results were analyzed using JMP-15 software.
resultsForty surveys were collected (80% surgeons, 20% residents). NMRDs scored significantly higher than MRD in DA (p = 0.003), FM (p < 0.001), ORsim (p < 0.001), and OQ (p < 0.001). One NMRD was chosen as the highest quality device (70%), and MRD as the poorest (78%). No significant differences were found when analyzing by surgical experience.
conclusionsIn terms of recording laparoscopic procedures, non-medical video recording devices (NMRDs) outperformed medical-grade recording device (MRD) with a higher overall score. This suggests that NMRDs could serve as a cost-effective alternative with superior video quality for recording laparoscopic surgeries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37715085What 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.