ArticleBMC biomedical engineering2024
Comparing scissors and scalpels to a novel surgical instrument: a biomechanical sectioning study.
Article in BMC biomedical engineering, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study introduces a novel surgical instrument to reduce iatrogenic nerve injuries during procedures such as carpal tunnel and ulnar nerve decompression surgery. These injuries often result from direct damage to surrounding tissues by surgical instruments, whose designs have remained largely unchanged over the past decades. The novel device is a modified surgical forceps that has a deployable surgical scalpel that runs along a groove on the forceps. This design protects important anatomical structures while allowing fast dissection and cutting of fascial layers.
methodsThe process used to develop a novel instrument included computer-aided design (CAD) modeling, 3D printing for prototyping, and the fabrication of an aluminum prototype. Biomechanical testing was performed with the novel device, iris scissors, bandage scissors, and a scalpel on an MTS Static Materials Test System. The peak force to slide-cut, number of cut attempts, and percentage cut on first attempt were compared between the prototype and traditional surgical tools. The materials cut in testing were Ace™ bandage, stockinette, and gauze. Statistical analyses were performed using Welch's t-tests and Fisher's exact tests.
resultsCompared to conventional bandage and iris scissors, the novel surgical instrument required significantly less force to cut through an Ace™ bandage, stockinette, and gauze (p < 0.01). The number of cuts required to transect those same materials with the novel device was comparable to that of the scalpel and bandage scissors. Additionally, while there were no differences between the novel device and the other devices for an Ace™ bandage and stockinette, the novel device tended to cut a greater percentage of gauze in one pass than did the iris scissors.
conclusionThe novel surgical instrument designed in this study required less force compared to conventional scissors, demonstrated cutting efficiency similar to that of a scalpel blade, and had more safety features than either instrument. This study highlights the value of collaboration between biomedical engineering and orthopedic surgery departments on innovation in medical technology, through which new technologies with improved design and functionality demonstrate the potential to reduce iatrogenic injuries.
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.