ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Redefining surgical workflow efficiency: evaluation of a novel laparoscopic multi-tool prototype.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery improves patient outcomes but introduces ergonomic and workflow inefficiencies due to frequent instrument changes. Symphera GmbH developed a novel laparoscopic prototype enabling intracorporeal tool tip switching, aiming to enhance efficiency and reduce surgical interruptions.
methodsSeven experienced surgeons evaluated the prototype during standardized tasks using excised animal tissue in a simulated laparoscopic environment. The tasks assessed precision, ergonomics, and tool-switching functionality. Quantitative data were obtained by video analysis; qualitative insights were gathered via semi-structured interviews and a post-procedural questionnaire.
resultsAll participants completed the tasks successfully, with no safety concerns. A total of 148 tool changes were performed. The automated exchange sequence required a constant mechanical time of 2.6 s, with a median overall changing time of 3.4 s. A total of 148 tool changes were performed. Tool-changing errors occurred in 4.73% of the changes, and 6.08% of changes resulted in software errors that required reboots. Changing time had no significant impact on overall task duration. The precision of monopolar application was high, and all targets were accurately reached. Questionnaire responses rated tool exchange positively, while ergonomics were judged moderate; female participants highlighted weight and comfort limitations, reflecting gender-related differences in usability. Qualitative analysis revealed both device improvement needs and strong enthusiasm for its potential to streamline workflows and enhance surgical autonomy.
conclusionThe prototype was safe, functional, and well-received. While software instability and ergonomic refinements remain necessary, the system demonstrated feasibility for rapid intracorporeal tool switching and showed promise for reducing operative inefficiencies. Further technical development and clinical trials are warranted to establish its clinical and economic value.
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.