ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Role of dedicated port cleaning devices in laparoscopic surgery.
Article 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.
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.
- Surgical skill assessment using an AI-based surgical phase recognition model for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious techniques have been used to prevent smudge on a laparoscope when inserting through trocars; however, there has been no standardized method. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of different cleaning techniques with or without using dedicated devices, and to evaluate the features of cleaning devices.
methodsThe smudge was created in the standard 12-mm and 5-mm ports using pseudo-blood, and port cleaning was attempted using 5 different methods: (1) a surgical gauze + surgical forceps, (2) a surgical gauze + laparoscopic forceps, (3) a small laparoscopic gauze + laparoscopic forceps, (4) a cylinder-type cleaner (Endo Wiper; Osaki Medical), and (5) a swab-type cleaner (Port Cleaner; Hakuzo Medical). The "port cleaning rate" was calculated by measuring the absorbance of remained pseudo-blood after single cleaning procedure using UV spectrophotometry. In addition, the port cleaning rate was compared between two dedicated devices after multiple (5 times) cleaning procedures.
resultsThe two dedicated devices had a statistically higher cleaning rate for 12-mm port than the methods using surgical gauze (p < 0.05). Regarding the 5-mm port, a swab-type cleaner showed the highest cleaning rate than the gauze method and a cylinder-type cleaner (p < 0.05). After multiple cleaning procedures for 12-mm port, cleaning rate of a swab-type cleaner decreased by an average of 5.4% (p = 0.044), but cleaning rate did not decrease for a cylinder-type cleaner. Regarding the 5-mm port, cleaning rate statistically decreased for both two dedicated devices (p < 0.01).
conclusionHigher port cleaning rates were observed in techniques using dedicated devices. A swab-type cleaner had better port cleaning rate in single use, especially for the 5-mm port. A cylinder-type cleaner showed higher durability in cleaning 12-mm port. The features of these dedicated devices should be well understood, and cleaning methods should be selected according to the environment and surgical techniques.
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.