Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39884990›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2025

Comparison of laparoscopic performance using low-cost laparoscopy simulators versus state-of-the-art simulators: a multi-center prospective, randomized crossover trial.

Mark Enrik Geissler, Jean-Paul Bereuter, Rona Berit Geissler, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Luisa Egen, Caelan Haney, Sofia Schmidt, Alexa Fries, Nathalie Buck, Juliane Weiß and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Mark Enrik GeisslerDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Jean-Paul BereuterDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Rona Berit GeisslerDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of Urology and Urosurgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Luisa EgenDepartment of Urology and Urosurgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Caelan HaneyDepartment of Urology and Urosurgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Sofia SchmidtDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Alexa FriesDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Nathalie BuckDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Juliane WeißDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Grit Krause-JüttlerDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Jürgen WeitzDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Marius DistlerDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Florian OehmeDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Felix von BechtolsheimDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. felix.bechtolsheim@ukdd.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2180-7981

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 054-2023Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 390696704
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSimulator training is an efficient method for the development of basic laparoscopic skills. We aimed to investigate if low-cost simulators are comparable to more expensive box trainers regarding surgeons usability, likability, and performance.

methodsThis multi-center, randomized crossover study included 16 medical students, seven abdominal surgeons, and seven urological surgeons. Participants performed four laparoscopic tasks (peg transfer, circle cutting, balloon resection, suture and knot) on both, a "Low cost trainer" (LCT) or a "high cost trainer" (HCT) in a randomized order. The primary endpoint was the subjective rating of both training simulators in terms of camera view, depth perception, movement of instruments, pricing, and usability for training. Secondary endpoints were force parameters, task completion time, surgical errors, and psychological workload.

resultsParticipants rated the LCT better concerning view (p < 0.001), depth perception (p = 0.003), pricing (p < 0.001), and usability for digital training (p < 0.001), but worse in terms of instrument movement (p = 0.004). Overall, the LCT was rated better than the HCT (p = 0.015). Regarding force parameters, participants showed a significantly lower force exertion on the HCT during the peg transfer task (p = 0.008). The force exertion in the other tasks were comparable between both trainers. Participants were significantly faster using the HCT during the peg transfer (p = 0.049) and significantly slower in balloon resection (p = 0.049) and suture and knot task (p = 0.026). The assessment of the participants' workload showed no differences.

conclusionThe LCT was generally rated better than the HCT. The differences concerning force exertion and task completion time showed better results during peg transfer at the HCT but were generally inconclusive and without systemic advantage for either trainer. However, the LCT could be a promising and cost-effective augmentation for modern laparoscopic training.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceLaparoscopySimulation TrainingAdultCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesYoung AdultLaparoscopic simulatorsLaparoscopic skill analysisMinimally invasive surgeryRandomized crossover trialSimulation trainingSurgical training

Identifiers

PMID39884990
PMCPMC11870972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.