Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31032203›Full record

ReviewAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2019

Training in robotic thoracic surgery-the European way.

Ghada M M Shahin, George J Brandon Bravo Bruinsma, Sasha Stamenkovic, Miguel A Cuesta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Pre-Procedural Robotic Surgery Curricula: A Systematic Review and Thematic Meta-Synthesis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Training residents in robotic thoracic surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021
    Review
  11. Robotic lobectomy: how to teach thoracic residents.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ghada M M ShahinDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Isala Heart Centre, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
George J Brandon Bravo BruinsmaDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Isala Heart Centre, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Sasha StamenkovicThe Thorax Centre, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
Miguel A CuestaDepartment of General Surgery, Vrije Universiteit Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing demand for robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) in Europe requires a structured and standardized training module. Until now, Intuitive Surgical Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has delivered the only available robotic surgery platform. Although the training program that is organized by Intuitive is divided in an initial and an advanced course, the success of the training depends on many external factors. Until now the training focused on experienced thoracic surgeons. The aim of this article is to offer a stepwise training module, which can be adopted by experienced open (thoracotomy) surgeons or video-assisted thoracic (VATS) surgeons but is primarily meant for thoracic surgery fellows and residents, as it is our sincere opinion that we should focus on training for this type of surgery as early in their careers as possible. In order to maintain surgical technique and minimize the chance of complications, on-going training and certification of the surgeons and the team is deemed necessary.

Indexed as

Robotic thoracic surgerysimulationtrainingvideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)

Identifiers

PMID31032203
PMCPMC6462552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.