ArticleGynecology and minimally invasive therapy
A Survey of Surgeon Interest in Individually Sized Laparoscopic Instruments.
Article in Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy. 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.
- Evidence-based ergonomic parameters for safer surgical practice: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled 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
Objectives: Allowing surgeons the option of individually sized laparoscopic instruments can potentially improve the ergonomics of laparoscopic surgery. We investigate interest in individually sized laparoscopic instruments among minimally invasive trained surgeons. Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional survey of 166 surgeons performing laparoscopic surgery in the disciplines of obstetrics/gynecology, general surgery, and urology. Items investigated surgeon knowledge, attitudes, potential usefulness, and interest regarding dissemination and implementation of individually sized laparoscopic instruments. Results: Overall mean knowledge of individually sized laparoscopic instruments ranged from strongly disagree to disagree and did not differ by glove size. Overall mean attitudes, dissemination, and implementation for individually sized laparoscopic instruments were between neutral and agree. Overall mean usefulness for individually sized laparoscopic instruments was neutral. There was a general pattern of small glove size having greater mean values than medium glove size for individually sized laparoscopic instruments for the topics of attitudes, usefulness, dissemination, and implementation. Conclusion: We found that those with small glove sizes are interested in individually sized laparoscopic instruments. We recommend that as surgeon demographics continue to diversify, especially with a larger number of women typically with smaller glove sizes becoming surgeons, there is a potential benefit for individually sized laparoscopic instruments. Hospitals, surgical centers, and clinical practices should consider making such individually sized laparoscopic instruments available to surgeons. This can potentially address the ergonomic concerns of surgeons and also improve surgical practice.
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.