ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
The use of a porcine model to teach advanced abdominal wall dissection techniques.
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 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.
- The emerging role of robotics in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Validating the mesh integration (MINT) index: a 3-month porcine study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Structured Training in Robotic Abdominal Wall Surgery: A Systematic Review of Educational Models, Methodologies, Existing Gaps and Unmet Needs.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the era of minimally invasive surgery, it is clear that a robust simulation model is required for the training of surgeons in advanced abdominal wall reconstruction. The purpose of this experimentation was to evaluate whether a porcine model could be used to teach advanced minimally invasive abdominal wall dissection techniques to novice surgeons. Secondary objectives included: time to completion, identification of various anatomical landmarks, to note the difference in porcine and human models and finally, the ability to dock a Da Vinci Xi robotic platform on the porcine model. METHODOLOGY: Two post-fellowship surgeons were given the task of performing an extended total extraperitoneal dissection (ETEP) on one female Landrace pig under the supervision of a surgeon experienced in robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair. This included insertion of ports, developing a retro-rectus plane, crossover from left to right rectus, bilateral transverse abdominus release, and sub-diaphragmatic dissection. A 5-mm vessel sealer was used to facilitate the dissection. The steps of the surgery were given to the trainees, and an experienced hernia surgeon guided the steps of dissection. The emphasis of the tasks was to develop the planes of extraperitoneal dissection to demonstrate that the porcine model could be considered for a viable and realistic model for training.
resultsThe candidates were able to successfully complete the task and dock a Da Vinci Xi with the porcine model providing a realistic platform for training.
conclusionThe porcine model can be a considerable tool in the education of surgeons embarking on learning the art of minimally invasive abdominal wall reconstruction techniques. The advantage of live tissue dissection, similarity in anatomy and the relatively inexpensive availability of porcine models, makes it an unparalleled form of simulation-based training. We believe that this will have transitional capabilities to robotic ETEP education for complex hernia repair.
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.