Skip to main content
. 2011 Jan-Mar;15(1):122–126. doi: 10.4293/108680811X13022985131697

Table 3.

Author Study Trocar type Difference in Defect Surface Area Comments
Tarnay10 Randomized, observer blinded swine abdominal wall Cutting Conical Pyramidal Conical fascial defect 57–68% smaller than cutting Conical split muscles, which later re-opposed with fascia
Conical fascial defect 32–62% smaller than pyramidal
Bhoyrul11 12 swine abdominal, not blinded Cutting Blunt radially dilating Radially dilating 52% narrower muscle defect than cutting Muscles split rather than cut