BackgroundMany surgeons in low- and middle-income countries have described performing surgery using gasless (lift) laparoscopy due to inaccessibility of carbon dioxide and reliable electricity, but the safety and feasibility of the technique has not been well documented. We describe preclinical testing of the in vivo safety and utility of KeyLoop, a laparoscopic retractor system to enable gasless laparoscopy.MethodsExperienced laparoscopic surgeons completed a series of four laparoscopic tasks in a porcine model: laparoscopic exposure, small bowel resection, intracorporeal suturing with knot tying, and cholecystectomy. For each participating surgeon, the four tasks were completed in a practice animal using KeyLoop. Surgeons then completed these tasks using standard-of-care (SOC) gas laparoscopy and KeyLoop in block randomized order to minimize learning curve effect. Vital signs, task completion time, blood loss and surgical complications were compared between SOC and KeyLoop using paired nonparametric tests. Surgeons completed a survey on use of KeyLoop compared to gas laparoscopy. Abdominal wall tissue was evaluated for injury by a blinded pathologist.ResultsFive surgeons performed 60 tasks in 15 pigs. There were no significant differences in times to complete the tasks between KeyLoop and SOC. For all tasks, there was a learning curve with task completion times related to learning the porcine model. There were no significant differences in blood loss, vital signs or surgical complications between KeyLoop and SOC. Eleven surgeons from the United States and Singapore felt that KeyLoop could be used to safely perform several common surgical procedures. No abdominal wall tissue injury was observed for either KeyLoop or SOC.ConclusionsProcedure times, blood loss, abdominal wall tissue injury and surgical complications were similar between KeyLoop and SOC gas laparoscopy for basic surgical procedures. This data supports KeyLoop as a useful tool to increase access to laparoscopy in low- and middle-income countries.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-023-10054-5.