ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2021
Medical student experience with robot-assisted surgery after limited laparoscopy exposure.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does laparoscopic experience affect the acquisition of initial robotic skills? A systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Transfer of skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Transfer of open and laparoscopic skills to robotic surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Robotic surgical curriculum for medical students: a scoping review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of robotic-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopy and traditional retroperitoneal laparoscopy in partial nephrectomy among patients with renal tumors: A retrospective cohort study.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the objective and subjective experience of medical students completing robotic surgery tasks after limited laparoscopy exposure. Twenty-three medical students without previous laparoscopy and robotic surgery experience self-enrolled into 0 min (n = 11), 20 min (n = 6), and 40 min (n = 6) laparoscopy training groups. Subjects completed rope passing and ball placement tasks on a laparoscopy trainer before repeating similar tasks on the Senhance Surgical System, a robot-assisted digital laparoscopy device. Videos were recorded to evaluate objective measures including time, completion rate, clutch use, out of view instruments, ball drops, and manual adjustments. The NASA-TLX survey was administered to assess subjective experience using workload and task demand measures. There were no statistically significant differences in objective performance between the groups (p > 0.05). Subjects who completed laparoscopy training reported higher workloads, but these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). NASA-TLX workload was correlated with time performance on Pearson and Spearman tests (r = 0.623, rho = 0.681, p < 0.01). Initial experience of medical students with robot-assisted surgery did not differ significantly after limited laparoscopy exposure.
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.