ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Validation of an instrument prototype for the minimally invasive fetal surgery of gastroschisis in an inanimate model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComplex gastroschisis requires timely intervention to protect the fetal intestine from inflammation and strangulation and avoid viscero-abdominal disproportion (VAD). Earlier results in ovine models for the fetoscopic management of gastroschisis highlight the benefits of minimally invasive coverage; yet specialized instruments appear to be needed for better procedural execution. The aim of this study was to create and validate a first prototype instrument for the prenatal covering of the protruded intestines in gastroschisis.
methodsA 7-mm diameter fetoscopic instrument was designed to hold and deploy a protective bag over the gastroschisis defect after suture fixation to the fetus. An inanimate model was used to evaluate the instrument's usability and effectiveness: Eleven participants performed bag placement and suturing both with and without the prototype, enabling a comparative assessment of procedural performance. Statistical analysis was conducted to evaluate the duration of the procedure, while product deficiencies were qualitatively assessed using a Likert-scale questionnaire. The overall usability of the prototype was further evaluated using the system usability scale (SUS).
resultsThe prototype consistently enhanced bag handling and positioning. Median procedural time slightly increased from 118.5 to 120.5 s with the prototype (p = 0.98), without affecting the overall procedural efficiency. Usability assessments using the SUS (median score: 67.95) and the Likert scale indicated a generally favorable response. Importantly, usability ratings were consistent regardless of participants' prior experience in minimally invasive surgery (p = 0.43), underscoring the intuitive design and ease of adoption of the prototype.
conclusionDespite a minor increase in procedural time, the prototype enabled secure bag placement and demonstrated moderate usability across all participants. This is particularly relevant for fetal procedures requiring amnioinfusion, as opposed to partial amniotic carbon dioxide insufflation (PACI) used in the inanimate model. However, further mechanical refinement is warranted to enhance performance and address usability concerns.
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.