↓ Skip to main content

Spider surgical system versus multiport laparoscopic surgery: performance comparison on a surgical simulator

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Spider surgical system versus multiport laparoscopic surgery: performance comparison on a surgical simulator
Published in
BMC Surgery, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12893-015-0038-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Domenico Giannotti, Giovanni Casella, Gregorio Patrizi, Giorgio Di Rocco, Lidia Castagneto-Gissey, Alessio Metere, Maria Giulia Bernieri, Anna Rita Vestri, Adriano Redler

Abstract

The rising interest towards minimally invasive surgery has led to the introduction of laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) surgery as the natural evolution of conventional multiport laparoscopy. However, this new surgical approach is hampered with peculiar technical difficulties. The SPIDER surgical system has been developed in the attempt to overcome some of these challenges. Our study aimed to compare standard laparoscopy and SPIDER technical performance on a surgical simulator, using standardized tasks from the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS). Twenty participants were divided into two groups based on their surgical laparoscopic experience: 10 PGY1 residents were included in the inexperienced group and 10 laparoscopists in the experienced group. Participants performed the FLS pegboard transfers task and pattern cutting task on a laparoscopic box trainer. Objective task scores and subjective questionnaire rating scales were used to compare conventional laparoscopy and SPIDER surgical system. Both groups performed significantly better in the FLS scores on the standard laparoscopic simulator compared to the SPIDER. Inexperienced group: Task 1 scores (median 252.5 vs. 228.5; p = 0.007); Task 2 scores (median 270.5 vs. 219.0; p = 0.005). Experienced group: Task 1 scores (median 411.5 vs. 309.5; p = 0.005); Task 2 scores (median 418.0 vs. 331.5; p = 0.007). Same aspects were highlighted for the subjective evaluations, except for the inexperienced surgeons who found both devices equivalent in terms of ease of use only in the peg transfer task. Even though the SPIDER is an innovative and promising device, our study proved that it is more challenging than conventional laparoscopy in a population with different degrees of surgical experience. We presume that a possible way to overcome such challenges could be the development of tailored training programs through simulation methods. This may represent an effective way to deliver training, achieve mastery and skills and prepare surgeons for their future clinical experience.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 13 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,070,329
of 23,932,490 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#280
of 1,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,417
of 267,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#11
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,932,490 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,357 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.