The definitions are as follows: (1) Surgical condition score: Surgical condition scales based on the subjective judgment of the surgeon were commonly used to evaluate the surgical workspace condition, including the 5-point scale (optimal = 5, good but not optimal = 4, moderate = 3, poor but not optimal = 2, poor, and unacceptable = 1) [19 (link)], and the 4-point scale (excellent = 1, good but not optimal = 2, poor but acceptable = 3, unacceptable = 4) [20 (link)]. According to the method of the published research, we converted the 4-point scale to a 5-point scale so that we could pool data in the meta-analysis [8 (link)–11 (link)]. (2) Acceptable surgical condition: Based on surgical condition scales, excellent, optimal, or good but not optimal surgical conditions are not generally thought to interfere with surgical procedures. Therefore, we defined that acceptable surgical condition includes excellent, optimal, and good but not optimal surgical conditions. (3) Intraoperative movement: body movement during surgery. (4) Adverse event: intraoperative and postoperative complications that may be associated with interventions. (5) Additional measures to improve the surgical condition: measures that can improve the surgical condition, including the use of additional NMBAs, changing body position, increasing pneumoperitoneum pressure, and switching to open surgery. (6) Intraoperative blood loss: blood loss during surgery. (7) Duration of surgery: the length of time that surgery continues. (8) Pain: score of the visual analog scale (VAS) or numerical rating scale (NRS), which is converted to a 1–10 range. (9) Length of stay: hospital stays after surgery.
Surgical Condition Evaluation Protocol
The definitions are as follows: (1) Surgical condition score: Surgical condition scales based on the subjective judgment of the surgeon were commonly used to evaluate the surgical workspace condition, including the 5-point scale (optimal = 5, good but not optimal = 4, moderate = 3, poor but not optimal = 2, poor, and unacceptable = 1) [19 (link)], and the 4-point scale (excellent = 1, good but not optimal = 2, poor but acceptable = 3, unacceptable = 4) [20 (link)]. According to the method of the published research, we converted the 4-point scale to a 5-point scale so that we could pool data in the meta-analysis [8 (link)–11 (link)]. (2) Acceptable surgical condition: Based on surgical condition scales, excellent, optimal, or good but not optimal surgical conditions are not generally thought to interfere with surgical procedures. Therefore, we defined that acceptable surgical condition includes excellent, optimal, and good but not optimal surgical conditions. (3) Intraoperative movement: body movement during surgery. (4) Adverse event: intraoperative and postoperative complications that may be associated with interventions. (5) Additional measures to improve the surgical condition: measures that can improve the surgical condition, including the use of additional NMBAs, changing body position, increasing pneumoperitoneum pressure, and switching to open surgery. (6) Intraoperative blood loss: blood loss during surgery. (7) Duration of surgery: the length of time that surgery continues. (8) Pain: score of the visual analog scale (VAS) or numerical rating scale (NRS), which is converted to a 1–10 range. (9) Length of stay: hospital stays after surgery.
Variable analysis
- Primary outcomes included acceptable surgical condition, surgical condition score, intraoperative movement, and adverse events
- Secondary outcomes included additional measures to improve the surgical condition, intraoperative blood loss (mL), duration of surgery (min), pain at 24 h, pain at 48 h, and length of stay (d)
- Acceptable surgical condition
- Surgical condition score
- Intraoperative movement
- Adverse events
- Additional measures to improve the surgical condition
- Intraoperative blood loss (mL)
- Duration of surgery (min)
- Pain at 24 h
- Pain at 48 h
- Length of stay (d)
- No control variables were explicitly mentioned in the provided information.
- No positive controls were explicitly mentioned.
- No negative controls were explicitly mentioned.
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!