ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Radial fan-based CO
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopic insufflation with pressurized carbon dioxide (CO
methodsAdults undergoing elective intraperitoneal laparoscopic procedures were included. All procedures were performed using the RFBI and an 11 mm study trocar. Primary outcomes were safety, defined as the absence of serious or harmful adverse device effects (SADEs or ADEs), and feasibility, defined as completing the procedure without switching to a conventional insufflator. Secondary outcomes included pressure stability at the device outlet and documentation of observed events affecting pressure stability (e.g., trocar insertion/repositioning, leaks, suction, etc.).
resultsTwelve patients were enrolled, having a total RFBI insufflation time of 35.9 h in seven different laparoscopic procedures. No SADEs occurred. One ADE occurred while inserting a 5 mm instrument into the 11 mm study trocar that resulted in high air leakage, causing temporary loss of surgical workspace but no harm. All procedures were completed without the need to switch to a conventional insufflator. Pressure remained stable at both target pressures of 10 mmHg (median 10.0 mmHg, interquartile range (IQR) 0.12) and 14 mmHg (median 14.0 mmHg, IQR 0.15). The RFBI rapidly re-established the target pressure after observed events affecting stability, without manual intervention or procedural delay.
conclusionThis first-in-human study demonstrates that RFBI technology is safe, feasible, and capable of maintaining stable insufflation pressures across varied adult laparoscopic procedures. Radial fan-based insufflation effectively compensated for pressure fluctuations from ventilation and surgical events, warranting further evaluation of clinical benefits.
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.