Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
ArtiSential® vs. straight-stick in laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resection: a prospective randomized study.
Trial report 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis prospective randomized study compared the efficacy of articulated ArtiSential® instruments with that of conventional straight laparoscopic instruments in minimally invasive left-sided colorectal resections. The primary endpoint was conversion to open laparotomy. Secondary endpoints included intraoperative and postoperative complications, estimated blood loss, operating time, lymph node yield, and length of hospital stay.
methods78 patients (37 males) were randomized to conventional straight instruments (n = 40) or ArtiSential® instruments (n = 38). Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests; continuous variables were analyzed using the 2-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on distribution. Subgroup analysis was performed for rectal resections (n = 22; standard: n = 8, ArtiSential®: n = 14).
resultsIn the overall cohort, no significant difference was observed in conversion to open surgery (7.5% vs. 0%; p = 0.241) or secondary endpoints: operating time (median 180.0 vs. 178.0 min; p = 1.000), estimated blood loss (25.0 vs. 20.0 mL; p = 0.096), intraoperative complications (7.5% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.616), postoperative complications (22.5% vs. 23.7%; p = 0.901), hospital stay (5.0 vs. 6.0 days; p = 0.695), and lymph node yield (17.0 vs. 14.0; p = 0.145). In the rectal resection subgroup, ArtiSential® instruments were associated with significantly lower conversion (37.5% vs. 0%; p = 0.036) and reduced blood loss (35.0 vs. 10.0 mL; p = 0.017), with no other significant differences observed.
conclusionWhile no benefit was observed in the overall cohort, articulated ArtiSential® instruments may provide advantages in rectal resections, including lower conversion rates and reduced blood loss, suggesting particular utility in technically challenging minimally invasive procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42301442What 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.