Trial reportBMC surgery2026
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a wireless intelligent endoscopic system versus a conventional wired system: a retrospective study.
Trial report in BMC surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical application value of a novel wireless intelligent endoscopic system in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsA total of 86 patients undergoing cholecystectomy between September and October 2023 were enrolled and randomly allocated to the observation group (wireless group, n = 43) and the control group (traditional wired group, n = 43). We comparatively analyzed technical performance, surgical safety (Critical View of Safety (CVS) achievement rate, complications), operator fatigue (Piper Fatigue Scale), perioperative physiological indicators (liver function, stress hormones, C-reactive protein(CRP)), pain scores (Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire(SF-MPQ)), and patient-reported outcomes (quality of recovery (QoR-15), quality of life (GIQLI), and ERAS compliance).
resultsAll 86 procedures were successfully completed without conversion to open surgery or severe bile duct injury. The wireless system showed no statistical difference in image transmission latency compared to the wired system (P > 0.05), yet its equipment weight was significantly reduced. Preoperative preparation time was significantly shorter in the wireless group (P < 0.001). For surgical safety, the CVS achievement rate was 100% in both cohorts. Operator fatigue scores were significantly lower in the observation group. Furthermore, postoperative CRP levels and SF-MPQ pain scores were significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.01). Patients in the observation group also demonstrated a significant advantage in postoperative QoR-15 and GIQLI scores (P < 0.05), with ERAS compliance exhibiting a positive correlation with recovery quality.
conclusionThe wireless intelligent endoscopic system is safe and feasible for LC, offering a safety profile comparable to traditional wired systems. By improving surgical ergonomics and attenuating postoperative systemic inflammation and pain, the system is positively associated with patients' early quality of recovery, effectively facilitating the implementation of the ERAS paradigm.
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.