Radially expanding (STEP) trocars for primary port entry vs standard (non‐expanding) trocars: Vascular injury (major vessels and abdominal wall vessels)
It is very uncertain whether radially expanding (STEP) trocars for primary port entry changes vascular injury (major vessels and abdominal wall vessels) compared with standard (non‐expanding) trocars (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Radially expanding (STEP) trocars for primary port entry vs standard (non‐expanding) trocars Vascular injury (major vessels and abdominal wall vessels) · patients undergoing laparoscopy It is very uncertain whether radially expanding (STEP) trocars for primary port entry changes vascular injury (major vessels and abdominal wall vessels) compared with standard (non‐expanding) trocars (very low certainty). Laparoscopic entry techniques (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Peto OR 0.24 [0.05, 1.21] | 2 studies · 331 participants | Very low |
Radially expanding (STEP) trocars for primary port entry vs standard (non‐expanding) trocars Major complication ‐ Vascular injury (major vessels and abdominal wall vessels) · patients undergoing laparoscopy Radially expanding (STEP) trocars for primary port entry showed no clear difference in major complication ‐ Vascular injury (major vessels and abdominal… compared with standard (non‐expanding) trocars (low certainty). Laparoscopic entry techniques (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD006583.PUB4, superseded | OR 0.24 [0.05, 1.21] | 2 studies · 331 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic entry techniques 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.