Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022
Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of robot-assisted surgical training in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC 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
- Transfer of skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Cognitive learning versus practical "hands-on" training for acquisition of laparoscopic surgical skills: an optimal combination study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view of safety annotation in training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Trial
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Video-based training of situation awareness enhances minimally invasive surgical performance: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Validation of the portable virtual reality training system for robotic surgery (PoLaRS): a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Trial
- Localized Muscular Fatigue in Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: Predictive Modeling Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Trainees Face Higher Musculoskeletal Demands than General Surgery Trainees in Simulated Laparoscopic Tasks-An Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Can they be compared? A narrative review and personal considerations disproving low-level evidence.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Review
- Skill assessment based on clutch use in cross-platform robot-assisted surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy: stepping stone to expertise or vogue?Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of robotic single-site cholecystectomy outcomes between novice and expert surgeons.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Review of robotic surgery platforms and end effectors.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
- Single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Review
- Short-term outcomes and costs analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a retrospective single-center analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Crossover-effects in technical skills between laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in simulation training for robot-assisted surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Safe implementation of hand held steerable laparoscopic instruments: a survey among EAES surgeons.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted surgery (RAS) potentially reduces workload and shortens the surgical learning curve compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the initial learning phase for novices.
methodsIn a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed both LC and RAC on a cadaveric porcine model. After standardized instructions and basic skill training, group 1 started with RAC and then performed LC, while group 2 started with LC and then performed RAC. The primary endpoint was surgical performance measured with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, secondary endpoints included operating time, complications (liver damage, gallbladder perforations, vessel damage), force applied to tissue, and subjective workload assessment.
resultsSurgical performance was better for RAC than for LC for total OSATS (RAC = 77.4 ± 7.9 vs. LC = 73.8 ± 9.4; p = 0.025, global OSATS (RAC = 27.2 ± 1.0 vs. LC = 26.5 ± 1.6; p = 0.012, and task specific OSATS score (RAC = 50.5 ± 7.5 vs. LC = 47.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.037). There were less complications with RAC than with LC (10 (25.6%) vs. 26 (65.0%), p = 0.006) but no difference in operating times (RAC = 77.0 ± 15.3 vs. LC = 75.5 ± 15.3 min; p = 0.517). Force applied to tissue was similar. Students found RAC less physical demanding and less frustrating than LC.
conclusionsNovices performed their first cholecystectomies with better performance and less complications with RAS than with CL, while operating time showed no differences. Students perceived less subjective workload for RAS than for CL. Unlike our expectations, the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic system did not lead to higher force application during RAC than LC and did not increase tissue damage. These results show potential advantages for RAS over CL for surgical novices while performing their first RAC and LC using an ex vivo cadaveric porcine model. REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry6029.
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.