ArticleBMC urology2024
Evaluation of the suitability of using ArtiSential in various renal surgery: IDEAL stage 1 study.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. 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.
- Bimanual Use of Articulating Laparoscopic Instruments (ArtiSential) in Pediatric Surgery: A Report of Three Cases.Surgical case reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtiSential, a new articulating laparoscopic instruments, addresses the limited movement associated with conventional laparoscopic instruments. This study was conducted to assess the clinical effectiveness of ArtiSential in detailed steps of various renal surgery.
methodsThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our institution and registered on the Clinical Research Information Service site of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. Participants meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the clinical trial and underwent renal surgery. The clinical effectiveness of ArtiSential was assessed in terms of the feasibility and objective and subjective parameters across 9 detailed steps.
resultsOf the 15 potential candidates enrolled from October 2021 to November 2021, 1 patient dropped out due to anaphylaxis from an anesthetic agent, and 14 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery using ArtiSential. Of the 14 patients, 2 patients were converted to laparoscopic surgery using straight-shaped instruments due to the ischemia time exceeding 30 min, and 1 patient due to excessive bleeding. The feasibility for most steps was more than 90%, except the renorrhaphy step. The median total operation time and ischemia time were 161 and 23 min, respectively. The median estimated blood loss was 58.5 mL. Two cases of venous injury occurred during renal pedicle dissection step. The accuracy of the procedure judged by reviewers and usability judged by the operator were acceptable in all steps. The surgeon's quantitatively measured stress score was the highest during renorrhaphy step.
conclusionsLaparoscopic surgery using ArtiSential is feasible for most steps except the renorrhaphy step. The difficulty of performing renorrhaphy is attributed to prolonged ischemia time, which could be addressed by overcoming the learning curve.
trial registrationClinical Research Information Service site of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, KCT0006532. Registered 03/09/2021, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=24071 .
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.