ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Comparing a novel wide field of view laparoscope with conventional laparoscope while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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, 3 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe limited 70° field of view (FoV) used in standard laparoscopy necessitates maneuvering the laparoscope to view the ports, follow the surgical tools, and search for a target region. Complications related to events that take place outside the FoV are underreported. Recently, a novel laparoscopic system (SurroundScope, 270Surgical) was reported to dramatically expand the FoV from 70 to 270°. This study focuses on differences in performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the SurroundScope compared to the standard laparoscope.
methodsForty-four laparoscopic surgeries were performed and video recorded. A subanalysis of 21 Cholecystectomies was performed and compared to 21 Cholecystectomies, performed with the standard laparoscope during the study period by the same surgeon.
resultsNo accidental or intraoperative adverse events occurred when using the SurroundScope. Subanalysis of 21 Cholecystectomies revealed shorter fog/smoke cleaning times using the SurroundScope compared to the standard scope (1.45 ± 5.08 sec vs. 54.95 ± 137.77 sec, p = 0.0454). Furthermore, operations performed with the SurroundScope had a shorter trocar placement duration (85.0 ± 40.9 sec vs. 111.3 ± 70.5 sec; p = 0.077), shorter time to achieve critical view of safety (9.5 ± 4.14 min vs. 15.8 ± 11.87 min; p = 0.015), and shorter procedure duration (31.9 ± 10.4 min vs. 42.9 ± 22 min; p = 0.025). In post-operative evaluations, the surgeon noted that tools could be continuously followed and ports were visible without camera manipulation. Also, the surgeon agreed that the procedure could be better planned due to the wide FoV and that surgical workflow was improved. Furthermore, the surgeon agreed that the procedure was safer using the SurroundScope.
conclusionsInitial results demonstrate the advantages of the SurroundScope over standard laparoscopy. By expanding the FoV, visualization is improved, the procedure is more efficient, significantly shorter and most important, patient safety, per surgeons' testimonials is improved. Further investigation to quantify these benefits in a larger group of patients and among various surgical procedures should be considered.
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.