ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Safety and feasibility of a low-cost laparoscope in a porcine model.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved performance and design of a low-cost laparoscope to enable laparoscopic surgery in low-income countries.Biophotonics discovery · 2025Article
- Development of a portable testing chamber to assess imaging performance of laparoscopes in low- and middle-income countries.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe KeyScope (KS) is a low-cost laparoscope that is designed specifically for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study evaluates its safety and feasibility in a porcine model.
methodsSurgeons performed three laparoscopic tasks fundamental to the performance of laparoscopy, including stapled bowel resection, intracorporeal knot tying, and cholecystectomy in three pigs: a practice pig, KS, and standard-of-care (SOC). Vital signs, complications, and task completion times were compared using paired nonparametric tests. After completing laparoscopic tasks, surgeons completed a survey to assess feasibility and identify opportunities for technology improvement.
resultsFive surgeons completed 45 laparoscopic tasks in 15 animals. There were no significant differences in vital signs between KS and SOC. There were no significant differences in median times to perform stapled bowel resection or cholecystectomy (KS 3 min, SOC 3 min, p = 0.185; KS 6 min, SOC 8 min, p = 0.887, respectively). Surgeons performed intracorporeal knot tying on SOC significantly faster than KS (KS 5 min, SOC 3 min, p = 0.012). All surgeons entered the gallbladder during dissection, with more liver bed injuries using the SOC compared to KS (n = 3, 60% vs. n = 2, 40%). Surgeons reported they would be willing to use the KS for laparoscopic procedures they do not routinely perform. When asked to rate the performance of KS versus SOC, there was a preference for KS in ergonomics and degree of fogging but a preference for SOC for light intensity, distance vision, and amount of focus. They felt KS and SOC performed similarly in glare, tissue color, and close vision. Surgeons reported a preference for the KS to an open approach.
conclusionsIn standardized porcine studies, KS performed similarly to the SOC with fewer complications, demonstrating both its feasibility and safety. Overall, surgeons reported comfort using the KS for laparoscopic cases. This data supports that KeyScope is a feasible tool to enable laparoscopy in LMICs.
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.