ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2021
Training benchmarks based on validated composite scores for the RobotiX robot-assisted surgery simulator on basic tasks.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac Simulator Technologies and Design for Medical Education and Auscultation Training: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Ergonomic interventions to reduce upper limb musculoskeletal pain during robotic surgery: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
- Surgical simulation supplements reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship training.F&S reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The RobotiX robot-assisted virtual reality simulator aims to aid in the training of novice surgeons outside of the operating room. This study aimed to determine the validity evidence on multiple levels of the RobotiX simulator for basic skills. Participants were divided in either the novice, laparoscopic or robotic experienced group based on their minimally invasive surgical experience. Two basic tasks were performed: wristed manipulation (Task 1) and vessel energy dissection (Task 2). The performance scores and a questionnaire regarding the realism, didactic value, and usability were gathered (content). Composite scores (0-100), pass/fail values, and alternative benchmark scores were calculated. Twenty-seven novices, 21 laparoscopic, and 13 robotic experienced participants were recruited. Content validity evidence was scored positively overall. Statistically significant differences between novices and robotic experienced participants (construct) was found for movements left (Task 1 p = 0.009), movements right (Task 1 p = 0.009, Task 2 p = 0.021), path length left (Task 1 p = 0.020), and time (Task 1 p = 0.040, Task 2 p < 0.001). Composite scores were statistically significantly different between robotic experienced and novice participants for Task 1 (85.5 versus 77.1, p = 0.044) and Task 2 (80.6 versus 64.9, p = 0.001). The pass/fail score with false-positive/false-negative percentage resulted in a value of 75/100, 46/9.1% (Task 1) and 71/100, 39/7.0% (Task 2). Calculated benchmark scores resulted in a minority of novices passing multiple parameters. Validity evidence on multiple levels was assessed for two basic robot-assisted surgical simulation tasks. The calculated benchmark scores can be used for future surgical simulation training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.