ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2015
Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted and open surgery in treating neurogenic bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic surgery for paediatric neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: a systematic review.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Current status of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer.Surgery today · 2019Pooled it
- A randomised trial of observational learning from 2D and 3D models in robotically assisted surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Trial
- Trial
- [Robotic liver surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- A Retrospective Study Comparing the Operative Outcomes of Extraperitoneal, Retrorectus Access Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Ventral Hernia Repairs.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site retroperitoneal nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff excision for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Preliminary experience.Asian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Da Vinci robot-assisted retroperitoneal tumor resection in 105 patients: a single-center experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Profiles of intraoperative complications in robot-assisted anatomical pulmonary resection for lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Review
- Robotic Surgery: Is There a Possibility of Increasing Its Application in Pediatric Settings? A Single-Center Experience.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Predictive factors for early discharge (≤24 hours) and re-admission following robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021Article
- Trends in Utilization and Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-assisted Bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database: A 4-Year Analysis.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- Review of the evidence for robotic-assisted robotic cystectomy and intra-corporeal urinary diversion in bladder cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- Comparison of Laparoscopic Steerable Instruments Performed by Expert Surgeons and Novices.Veterinary sciences · 2020Article
- Cost, training and simulation models for robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric urology.World journal of urology · 2020Review
- Primary robotic RLPND for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: a two-center analysis of intermediate oncologic and safety outcomes.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Current status and evolution of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery in Germany-results from a nationwide survey.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technical surgical skills are said to be acquired quicker on a robotic rather than laparoscopic platform. However, research examining this proposition is scarce. Thus, this study aimed to compare the performance and learning curves of novices acquiring skills using a robotic or laparoscopic system, and to examine if any learning advantages were maintained over time and transferred to more difficult and stressful tasks. Forty novice participants were randomly assigned to either a robotic- or laparoscopic-trained group. Following one baseline trial on a ball pick-and-drop task, participants performed 50 learning trials. Participants then completed an immediate retention trial and a transfer trial on a two-instrument rope-threading task. One month later, participants performed a delayed retention trial and a stressful multi-tasking trial. The results revealed that the robotic-trained group completed the ball pick-and-drop task more quickly and accurately than the laparoscopic-trained group across baseline, immediate retention, and delayed retention trials. Furthermore, the robotic-trained group displayed a shorter learning curve for accuracy. The robotic-trained group also performed the more complex rope-threading and stressful multi-tasking transfer trials better. Finally, in the multi-tasking trial, the robotic-trained group made fewer tone counting errors. The results highlight the benefits of using robotic technology for the acquisition of technical surgical skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26530974What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.