ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Keep it simple: a crosshair on the screen during proctored laparoscopic surgeries.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInside the operating room, experts use verbal instructions to guide surgical novices through laparoscopic procedures. In this study, we evaluated the use of a crosshair attached to the video monitor, as a hands-free pointing tool to simplify instructions during operation.
methodsTen surgical novices performed two elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies within a week of each other, randomized such that one was performed with and the other without using the crosshair. Directly after operation, questionnaires were completed by the novices and the consultant surgeons. Measures including the comprehensibility of instructions, subjective feeling of safety during preparation, time delays due to different instruction options, and disruptive influence while instructors used the crosshair. Differences in operative performance were evaluated based on the global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills (GOALS) scores.
resultsWhen the crosshair was used, surgical novices had a better understanding of which anatomical structure should be shown (p = 0.028). Operating time (p = 0.222) and feeling of confidence during preparation did not differ with versus without crosshair use (p = 0.081). All participants stated that the crosshair did not negatively affect the field of vision. In terms of the median GOALS score, the operative performance was improved when the crosshair was used compared with verbal instructions only (median 15, IQR (11; 21) vs. median 12, IQR (5; 19), p < 0.001).
conclusionThe crosshair is a simple, inexpensive, and widely available method to improve communication between instructors and novices in everyday training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38376630What 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.