SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Application of animal organ models in laparoscopic surgery training: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal organ models are increasingly used in laparoscopic training; however, their educational effectiveness and optimal application have yet to be synthesized. This systematic review aimed to review the evidence for application and effectiveness of animal organ models in laparoscopic training.
methodsMEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to May 23, 2026, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating animal organ models for laparoscopic technical skills training were included. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Data on model characteristics (anatomical and physiological realism), training protocols, assessment tools, and educational outcomes were extracted.
resultsA total of 56 studies were included, involving 2025 participants across six specialties. Based on anatomical and physiological realism of animal organ models, three fidelity levels were identified: low (15 studies, mainly in urology), medium (37 studies, across multiple specialties), and high (ex vivo perfused, 11 studies, mainly for resection procedures). Of the 56 studies, 4 assessed training impact using only self-reported questionnaires, 41 measured impact by change in learner knowledge and skill in teaching scenario, and 12 provided evidence of clinical skill transfer (21%), of which 5 only evaluated behavior change in workplace using objective parameters or rating scales, and 7 measured patient outcomes simultaneously. Only one study explicitly reported Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) approval.
conclusionsAnimal organ models provide fidelity‑dependent educational value across laparoscopic training stages. Low‑fidelity models support novices in acquiring fundamental psychomotor skills; medium‑fidelity models facilitate procedure‑specific training in intermediates within realistic anatomy; and high‑fidelity perfused models prepare advanced trainees for intraoperative crisis management. However, evidence for clinical transfer and ethical reporting remains limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42625067What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.