Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34383208›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Development and validation of the metric-based assessment of a robotic vessel dissection, vessel loop positioning, clip applying and bipolar coagulation task on an avian model.

Stefano Puliatti, Marco Amato, Elio Mazzone, Giuseppe Rosiello, Ruben De Groote, Pietro Piazza, Luca Sarchi, Rui Farinha, Alexandre Mottrie, Anthony G Gallagher

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Stefano PuliattiORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Marco AmatoORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium. marcohz92@gmail.com.
Elio MazzoneDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe RosielloDivision of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Ruben De GrooteORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Pietro PiazzaORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Luca SarchiORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Rui FarinhaORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Alexandre MottrieORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Anthony G GallagherORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Onze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital · BEORSI Academy · BEVita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITCentro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central · PTUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of robotic technology and its diffusion does not seem to have been adequately accompanied by the development and implementation of surgeon training programs that ensure skilled and safe device use at the start of the learning curve. The objective of the study is to develop and validate performance metrics for vessel dissection, vessel loop positioning, clip applying and bipolar coagulation using an avian model. Three robotic surgeons and a behavioral scientist characterized the performance metrics of the task according to the proficiency-based progression methodology. Fourteen experienced robotic surgeons from different European countries participated in a modified online Delphi consensus. Eight experienced surgeons and eight novices performed the robotic task twice. In the Delphi meeting, 100% consensus was reached on the performance metrics. Novice surgeons took 26 min to complete the entire task on trial 1 and 20 min on trial 2. Experts took 10.1 min and 9.5 min. On average the Expert Group completed the task 137% faster than the Novice Group. The amount of time to reach the vessel part of the task was also calculated. Novice surgeons took 26 min on trial 1 and 20 min on trial 2. Experts took 5.5 min and 4.8 min. On average the experts reached the vessel 200% faster than the novices. The Expert Group made 155% fewer performance errors than the Novice Group. The mean IRR of video-recorded performance assessments for all metrics was 0.96 (95% confidence intervals (CI) lower = 0.94-upper = 0.98). We report the development and validation for a standard and replicable basic robotic vessel dissection, vessel loop positioning, clip applying and bipolar coagulation task on an avian model. The development of objective performance metrics, based on a transparent and fair methodology (i.e., PBP), is the first fundamental step toward quality assured training. This task developed on the avian model proved to have good results in the validation study.

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceHumansLearning CurveSurgical InstrumentsDissection skillsProficiency-based metricsRobotic surgical trainingTraining task validation

Identifiers

PMID34383208
OpenAlexW3189562776

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.