What is the value of animal models in laparoscopic surgery?—a systematic review

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY Annals of Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Surgery Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.21037/ales-21-52
A. Koscielny
{"title":"What is the value of animal models in laparoscopic surgery?—a systematic review","authors":"A. Koscielny","doi":"10.21037/ales-21-52","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Animal models are essential in both basic and applied medical research and in the development of surgical skills. This presents the classic dilemma whereby the gaining of knowledge for human good is confronted by its critical impact on animals. Against this background, this review assesses animal models in laparoscopic surgery by literature research. Methods: In line with PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. All studies reporting on animal models for basic research, technological and skills training in laparoscopic surgery, published between 2016 and 2021 were included. The selection was based on a three-step algorithm, considering specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The retrieved studies were assessed for methodological quality and potential bias by Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: The search criteria were met by 356 publications. Of these, 177 were included by title, abstract and full text availability and 94 studies were excluded from further analyses by exclusion criteria. The remaining 83 studies consisted of 45 studies (54.2%) about skills training or technological testing and 38 studies (45.8%) about basic science research. The 38 studies on basic or applied scientific research included three publications on mouse models (7.9%), 24 on rat models (63.1%), two on rabbit models (5.3%), and nine on porcine models (23.7%). The 45 studies on skills training or technological testing included eight publications on rat models (17.8%), three on rabbit models (6.7%), and 34 on porcine models (75.5%). Discussion: The various animal models are discussed focusing on their value for basic science research or surgical testing and training. Animal models in laparoscopic surgery are of essential value. The rat model in laparoscopy is more suitable for basic and applied research, while porcine models are more suitable for training in surgical skills and testing in technology. Current efforts based on artificial intelligence and virtual reality might reduce or even replace the animal models in the not-too-distant future. 13","PeriodicalId":8024,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/ales-21-52","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Animal models are essential in both basic and applied medical research and in the development of surgical skills. This presents the classic dilemma whereby the gaining of knowledge for human good is confronted by its critical impact on animals. Against this background, this review assesses animal models in laparoscopic surgery by literature research. Methods: In line with PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. All studies reporting on animal models for basic research, technological and skills training in laparoscopic surgery, published between 2016 and 2021 were included. The selection was based on a three-step algorithm, considering specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The retrieved studies were assessed for methodological quality and potential bias by Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: The search criteria were met by 356 publications. Of these, 177 were included by title, abstract and full text availability and 94 studies were excluded from further analyses by exclusion criteria. The remaining 83 studies consisted of 45 studies (54.2%) about skills training or technological testing and 38 studies (45.8%) about basic science research. The 38 studies on basic or applied scientific research included three publications on mouse models (7.9%), 24 on rat models (63.1%), two on rabbit models (5.3%), and nine on porcine models (23.7%). The 45 studies on skills training or technological testing included eight publications on rat models (17.8%), three on rabbit models (6.7%), and 34 on porcine models (75.5%). Discussion: The various animal models are discussed focusing on their value for basic science research or surgical testing and training. Animal models in laparoscopic surgery are of essential value. The rat model in laparoscopy is more suitable for basic and applied research, while porcine models are more suitable for training in surgical skills and testing in technology. Current efforts based on artificial intelligence and virtual reality might reduce or even replace the animal models in the not-too-distant future. 13
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动物模型在腹腔镜手术中的价值是什么--系统综述
背景:动物模型在基础医学和应用医学研究以及外科技能的发展中都是必不可少的。这呈现了一个典型的困境,即为人类利益获取知识面临着对动物的关键影响。在此背景下,本综述通过文献研究评估腹腔镜手术中的动物模型。方法:根据PRISMA指南,在PubMed、Google Scholar和Web of Science上进行系统的文献检索。包括2016年至2021年间发表的所有关于腹腔镜手术基础研究、技术和技能培训动物模型的研究。该选择基于三步算法,考虑了具体的入选和排除标准。检索到的研究由Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册评估方法学质量和潜在偏倚。结果:356篇出版物符合检索标准。其中,177项研究按标题、摘要和全文可用性纳入,94项研究按排除标准排除在进一步分析之外。其余83项研究包括45项(54.2%)关于技能培训或技术测试的研究和38项(45.8%)关于基础科学研究的研究。38项关于基础或应用科学研究的研究包括3份关于小鼠模型的出版物(7.9%)、24份关于大鼠模型(63.1%)、2份关于兔模型(5.3%)和9份关于猪模型(23.7%),讨论:讨论了各种动物模型,重点讨论了它们在基础科学研究或外科测试和训练中的价值。动物模型在腹腔镜手术中具有重要价值。腹腔镜下的大鼠模型更适合基础和应用研究,而猪模型更适合手术技能的训练和技术测试。目前基于人工智能和虚拟现实的努力可能会在不久的将来减少甚至取代动物模型。13
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Minimally invasive colorectal surgery—the sky is the limit Robotic approaches for vascular and endovascular procedures: a narrative review A review of minimally invasive surgery in ulcerative colitis: more than one way to skin a cat Colon polyp characterization (morphology and mucosal patterns): clinical application and techniques Colon cancer: is the robot a better option?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1