Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2024
3D monitors improve performance on the HUGO™ RAS system: a randomised trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted surgery is used worldwide, allowing surgeons to perform complex surgeries with increased precision and flexibility. It offers technical benefits compared to traditional laparoscopic surgery due to its utilization of both 3D vision and articulated instruments. The objective was to investigate the isolated effect of 3D- versus 2D monitors when working with articulated instruments in robot-assisted surgery.
methodsSurgical novices (medical students, n = 31) were randomized to simulation-based training with either the 3D vision switched on or off. Both groups completed each of the four exercises six times over two sessions on the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS system simulator. The outcome was the simulator performance parameters and a visual discomfort questionnaire.
resultsFor the efficiency parameters, we found that both groups improved over time (p < 0.001) and that the intervention group (3D) consistently outperformed the control (2D) group (p < 0.001). On the other hand, we didn't find any significant difference in the error metrics, such as drops (p-values between 0.07 and 0.57) and instrument collisions (p-values between 0.09 and 0.26). Regarding Visual Discomfort, it was significantly more difficult for the 3D group to focus (p = 0.001).
conclusion3D monitors for an open robotic console improve efficiency and speed compared to 2D monitors in a simulated setting when working with articulated instruments.
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.