ArticleScientific reports2023
The relevance of reducing Veress needle overshooting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning curve estimation and insertion depth in Veress needle insertion using a conventional Veress needle and the VeressPlus™ needle.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Comparison of Percutaneous Internal Ring Suturing (PIRS) versus Open Ligation of the Patent Processus Vaginalis for the Treatment of Communicating Pediatric Hydrocele.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Safe insertion of the Veress needle during laparoscopy relies on the surgeons' technical skills in order to stop needle insertion just in time to prevent overshooting in the underlying organs. To reduce this risk, a wide variety of Veress needle systems were developed with safety mechanisms that limit the insertion speed, insertion depth or decouple the driving force generated by the surgeon's hand on the needle. The aim of this study is to evaluate current surgeons' perceptions related to the use of Veress needles and to investigate the relevance of preventing overshooting of Veress needles among members of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). An online survey was distributed by the EAES Executive Office to all active members. The survey consisted of demographic data and 14 questions regarding the use of the Veress needle, the training conducted prior to usage, and the need for any improvement. A total of 365 members residing in 58 different countries responded the survey. Of the responding surgeons, 36% prefer the open method for patients with normal body mass index (BMI), and 22% for patients with high BMI. Of the surgeons using Veress needle, 68% indicated that the reduction of overshoot is beneficial in normal BMI patients, whereas 78% indicated that this is beneficial in high BMI patients. On average, the members using the Veress needle had used it for 1448 (SD 3031) times and felt comfortable on using it after 22,9 (SD 78,9) times. The average years of experience was 17,6 (SD 11,1) and the surgeons think that a maximum overshoot of 9.4 (SD 5.5) mm is acceptable before they can safely use the Veress needle. This survey indicates that despite the risks, Veress needles are still being used by the majority of the laparoscopic surgeons who responded. In addition, the surgeons responded that they were interested in using a Veress needle with an extra safety mechanism if it limits the risk of overshooting into the underlying structures.
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.