ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating the efficacy of smoke management technologies in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: insights from a prospective, single-centre comparative study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical power devices generate surgical smoke that may contain infectious components. Various technologies have been developed to improve surgical smoke management, but comparative performance data from human studies are limited. A prospective, single-centre study was performed for evaluating three smoke management technologies - continuous passive filtration (CPF), electrostatic precipitation (ESP), and continuous active filtration (CAF) - during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in 15 bariatric patients. Surgical smoke concentration was monitored by condensation particle counting and single particle light scattering. Efficiency of intraoperative smoke clearance was assessed by the concentration half-life (T1/2). Secondary outcomes included total CO2 consumption, intraoperative pressure stability, and intraoperative visibility. ESP showed the highest smoke clearance efficiency (T1/2 = 7.2 s), followed by CAF (18.3 s) and CPF (20.6 s) with significant differences. Total CO2 consumption was highest for CAF (452.0 L) compared CPF (242.0 L) and ESP (80.1 L). All groups maintained a stable capnoperitoneal pressure and a good/very good intraoperative visibility. Electrostatic precipitation showed the lowest CO2 consumption and significantly higher smoke particle removal efficiency compared to continuous active/passive filtration. All technologies provided good/very good intraoperative visibility and capnoperitoneal pressure stability.
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.