ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2026
Development of a new suction instrument to reduce surgical smoke exposure in the operating room.
Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 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
Objective: To remove surgical smoke and its toxic components, we developed a novel smoke removal tube nested with the intraoperative suction tube, enabling convenient application during surgery and reducing hazards of surgical smoke exposure to medical staff. Methods: Standardized cuts with an electric knife were performed on pig dorsal tissue in an animal laboratory operating room without vertical laminar flow. The generated surgical fumes were analyzed using microcomputer laser dust meter counters for real-time monitoring of particulate matter 2.5 μm (PM2.5). Three new design suction tubes with different orifice diameters (1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mm), each connected to local smoke evacuation, were compared with a conventional instrument without smoke evacuation. Results: The PM2.5 levels were significantly reduced with all three new tools, with smoke reduction rates of 24.20%, 66.86%, and 43.02%, respectively. Ten seconds after cutting, the 2.0-mm-diameter suction tube demonstrated lower PM2.5 concentrations compared with the other two groups, and the difference was statistically significant ( Conclusion: This study is the first to develop an "all-in-one" surgical smoke device that enables simultaneous suction of smoke and blood with one hand. Among the tested tools, the 2.0-mm-diameter instrument is the best one. These results promote the use of local smoke evacuation and may inspire other surgeons to further innovation in this field.
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.