ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2026
Comparison between a laparoscopic articulating needle driver with standard laparoscopic instrumentation for total laparoscopic gastropexy in dogs.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the utility of a mechanical laparoscopic articulating needle driver (ALI) to standard laparoscopic instrumentation (SLI) during the creation of a total laparoscopic gastropexy (TLG) in dogs. STUDY
designProspective clinical trial. ANIMALS: A total of 17 client owned dogs.
methodsDogs underwent elective prophylactic TLG and were randomized to ALI or SLI for the first gastropexy suture line. The second line was performed with the alternate instrumentation. Duration of intracorporeal suturing, NASA-Task Load Index (TLX) questionnaire, modified Instrument Function and Ergonomics survey, and intraoperative incidents were documented per suture line.
resultsSeven female, seven male, two male-sterilized, and one female-sterilized dogs were included. Median weight was 38 kg (range: 17.9-66 kg). Four Standard Poodles and German Shepherd dogs each, two Bernese Mountain dogs, and one each of the Airedale, Armenian Gampr, Great Dane, Doberman Pinscher, Anatolian Shepherd, Irish Wolfhound, and mixed breed were enrolled. Median time to complete the suture line with SLI (6 min, range: 5-10) was significantly shorter than ALI (8 min, range: 6-11, p < .001). Averaged NASA-TLX scores of mental demand (p = .030), performance (p = .014), effort (p = .030), and frustration (p = .042) were significantly greater for ALI suture lines compared to SLI. Two grade 2 adverse events occurred during TLG.
conclusionSuture time and surgeon workload was negatively affected by ALI use compared to SLI. Adverse events were rare and all dogs had TLG successfully completed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both devices can be used to perform TLG. While initial comparison favored SLI, the utility of ALI requires further investigation.
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.