IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Systematic review of retraction devices for laparoscopic surgery

Listed author(s):
  • Armando Vargas-Palacios


    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Claire Hulme

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Thomas Veale

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Candice Downey

    (Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust)

Registered author(s):

    Objective: To explore the advantages and disadvantages of different retraction devices used for laparoscopic surgery. The main focus was on its impact on operation time, length of stay, use of staff, complications or negative outcomes (such as pain, liver functioning or damage, blood loss), operative difficulty and conversion rates to open surgery. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library, and ongoing trials sources. The search strategy focused on laparoscopic studies that had as primary objective the test of a retraction device. Studies were included if they met the predefined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction of included papers was performed and the data was analysed. Results: Out of 1360 initially retrieved, 12 articles were selected for data extraction and analysis. A total of 13 instruments (11 devices and 2 techniques) were described in those articles. Among the devices found are the Nathanson’s retractor device, the Liver suspension tape or (TST), a Silicone disk, the Endoloop, the R-Scope, two magnetic retractors, the Endograb, the VaroLift a Laparoscope holder and a Retraction sponge. While the V-List and Trans-abdominal stay sutures techniques were used as comparators in some studies. None of the instruments reported a permanent damage in the liver function nor a relevant complication or adverse event related to its usage. No conversion rates to open surgery were necessary. All articles reported that the tested instruments might spare the use of a surgeon assistant during the procedure. It was not possible to determine the impact on either the length of stay, or the operation time, although the Nathanson’s instrument had the quickest set up time. Conclusions: This systematic review of the literature on laparoscopic retrieving devices provided an insight into the different instruments available for retraction during laparoscopic surgery. Although each analysed device has its advantages and disadvantages, in general terms their use during laparoscopic intervention facilitates the retraction procedure, provides a good field of view, causes no relevant complications, and reduces the use of staff or allows them to assist in different activities, while making conversions to open surgery unnecessary.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: First version, 2014
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds in its series Working Papers with number 1403.

    in new window

    Length: 21 pages
    Date of creation: 2014
    Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1403
    Contact details of provider: Phone: Worsley Building, Level 11, Clarendon Way, LEEDS LS2 9NL
    Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Judy Wright)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.