ArticleBMC surgery2025
The effect of using laparoscopic imaging screens of different sizes (55-inch vs. 27-inch) on surgical parameters in hysterectomy surgery: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMonitors that can provide 2-dimensional (2D) or 3-dimensional (3D) images, as well as high-definition (HD) or 4 K-HD image quality, offer various conveniences to surgeons. While studies comparing 2D and 3D screens exist in the literature, studies are needed to investigate the effects of different monitor sizes on surgical success. This study aimed to examine the impact of screen size on surgical parameters in patients who have undergone a hysterectomy using either a 55-inch or a 27-inch monitor.
methodsPatients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy and salpingectomy/salpingo-oophorectomy between May 2022 and July 2023 were retrospectively screened. Two groups were created. GroupA consisted of patients who underwent surgery using a 55-inch (140 cm) monitor with both 2D and 4 K-HD features. GroupB consisted of patients whose surgery was performed using a 27-inch (69 cm) monitor with both 2D and 4 K-HD features. A total of 72 women (n(GroupA) = 36, n(GroupB) = 36) were included in the study.
resultsNo statistically significant difference was observed between groups regarding age, number of cesarean sections, or body mass index (p > 0.05). Additionally, no statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding the total surgery duration (GroupA, GroupB; (126.86 ± 50.42), (128.97 ± 44.29), p = 0.851, respectively). When evaluating the percentage decrease in hemoglobin values before and after surgery, no statistically significant difference was observed between groups (GroupA, GroupB; (-0.11 ± 0.06), (-0.11 ± 0.07), p = 0.746, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding hematocrit changes, frequency of intraoperative complications, postoperative infections, the time to first gas passage, and length of hospital stay (p > 0.05).
conclusionsIn laparoscopic monitor systems with 4 K-HD resolution, the screen size, whether 27-inches or 55-inches, may not significantly affect surgical parameters.
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.