ArticleThe Permanente journal2021
A Novel, Structured Fellow Training Pathway for Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of comprehensive Robotic-assisted surgical (RAS) curricula.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Pre-Procedural Robotic Surgery Curricula: A Systematic Review and Thematic Meta-Synthesis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe developed a novel fellow education pathway for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and aimed to compare step-specific and total operative times for RASC performed by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) attendings with those in which FPMRS fellows performed part or all of the RASC. We further aimed to compare complication and readmission rates by fellow involvement.
methodsWe tracked RASC at 1 institution between 2012 and 2018. We recorded times for total procedure, sacrocolpopexy, and 6 individual steps. Fellows were designated F1-F3 by training year. We used independent samples t-tests and analysis of variance for continuous variables and χ
resultsOf 178 RASC procedures, 76 (42.7%) involved fellows. Concomitant procedures included hysterectomy (62.4%), midurethral sling (50%), and colporrhaphy/perineorrhaphy (51.7%). RASC without and with fellows had similar demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics, except for midurethral sling rate (attending, 42.2% vs fellow, 60.5%; p = 0.02). RASC without and with fellows had similar times for total procedure (208.9 ± 61.0 vs 209.1 ± 48.6 minutes, p = 0.98), sacrocolpopexy (116.9 ± 39.9 vs 122.7 ± 29.2 minutes, p = 0.27), and all RASC steps except docking (attendings, 9.9 ± 8.6 vs fellows, 7.2 ± 7.0 minutes; p = 0.03). Complication rates and severity were similar without and with fellows. There were no readmissions. DISCUSSION/
conclusionOur novel structured training program provides safe limitations for total and step-specific procedural times during fellowship education in RASC. Such training programs warrant further study to determine potential contribution to quality and safety in the teaching environment.
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.