ReviewWorld journal of urology2020
The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon.
Review in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Expert consensus on best content of a robotic surgical curriculum: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review.The British journal of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Instructional Design for Surgical Novices Based on Cognitive Load Theory: Implications for Urologic Surgery Training.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Review
- Biomechanical determinants of 8-mm robotic port-site hernia: the impact of torque exposure and operative duration.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility and safety assessment of the AGIBOTSurgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Advancements and challenges in robotic surgery: A holistic examination of operational dynamics and future directions.Surgery in practice and science · 2025Review
- Safety with the senhance™ robotic system in 3,239 patients across various surgical disciplines.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Urachal Excision and Partial Cystectomy for Urachal Pathologies: Systematic Review with Insights from Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Robotic colorectal surgery training: Portsmouth perspective.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Review
- Development and validation of metrics for a new RAPN training model.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- ESRU-ESU-YAU_UROTECH Survey on Urology Residents Surgical Training: Are We Ready for Simulation and a Standardized Program?European urology open science · 2024Article
- Robotic Revolution in Surgery: Diverse Applications Across Specialties and Future Prospects Review Article.Cureus · 2024Review
- In the Hands of a Robot, From the Operating Room to the Courtroom: The Medicolegal Considerations of Robotic Surgery.Cureus · 2023Review
- The Surgical Learning Curve for Biochemical Recurrence After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.European urology oncology · 2023Article
- Objective assessment of intraoperative skills for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Non-technical skills in robotic surgery and impact on near-miss events: a multi-center study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Observational
- Development and validation of the objective assessment of robotic suturing and knot tying skills for chicken anastomotic model.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Objective assessment of intraoperative skills for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): results from the ERUS Scientific and Educational Working Groups Metrics Initiative.BJU international · 2021Article
- Machine learning in the optimization of robotics in the operative field.Current opinion in urology · 2020Review
- Five Years of the CC-ERUS Fellowship: A Survey of the Experiences and Post-fellowship Work of the Fellows.European urology open science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the available literature evidence that discusses the effect of surgical experience on patient outcomes in robotic setting. This information is used to help understand how we can develop a learning process that allows surgeons to maximally accommodate patient safety.
methodsA literature search of the MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus database was performed. Original and review articles published in the English language were included after an interactive peer-review process of the panel.
resultsRobotic surgical procedures require high level of experience to guarantee patient safety. This means that, for some procedures, the learning process might be longer than originally expected. In this context, structured training programs that assist surgeons to improve outcomes during their learning processes were extensively discussed. We identified few structured robotic curricula and demonstrated that for some procedures, curriculum trained surgeons can achieve outcomes rates during their initial learning phases that are at least comparable to those of experienced surgeons from high-volume centres. Finally, the importance of non-technical skills on patient safety and of their inclusion in robotic training programs was also assessed.
conclusionTo guarantee safe robotic surgery and to optimize patient outcomes during the learning process, standardized and validated training programs are instrumental. To date, only few structured validated curricula exist for standardized training and further efforts are needed in this direction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31428847What 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.