ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Factors affecting workflow in robot-assisted surgery: a scoping review.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intraoperative surgical needle loss in robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and practical troubleshooting framework.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Augmenting colonoscopy with artificial intelligence and robotic assistance: a human-factors scoping review toward a task-based shared autonomy paradigm.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Team members' reflections in debriefings after simulated robot-assisted surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Development of a core competency evaluation index system for specialist nurses in robot-assisted surgery: a Delphi study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Comparisons between aviation and robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology: lessons from safety practices in high-risk industries.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Smart Operating Room in Digestive Surgery: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The importance of non-technical skills in robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring.Nature medicine · 2024Review
- Workflow disruptions in robot-assisted surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted surgery is expanding worldwide. Most research in this field concentrates on surgeons' technical skills and patient outcome, but research from open and laparoscopic surgery shows that teamwork is crucial for patient safety. Team composition is changed in robot-assisted surgery with the surgeon placed away from the bedside, potentially altering teamwork and workflow in the operating theatre. This scoping review aimed to explore how factors affecting workflow as well as team members' social and cognitive skills during robot-assisted surgery are reported in the literature.
methodsA systematic search was performed in the databases Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Reports were screened according to the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Review guidelines. Inclusion criteria were robot-assisted surgery, multi-professional teams, and workflow, flow disruptions, or non-technical skills.
resultsA total of 12,527 references were screened, and 24 articles were included in the review. Articles were heterogeneous in terms of aim, methods and focus. The studies concentrated on two main fields: flow disruptions and the categorization of their causes and incidences; and non-technical skills describing the challenges of communication and effects on situation awareness.
conclusionMany studies focused on flow disruptions and found that communication, coordination, training, and equipment/technology were the most frequent causes. Another focus of studies was non-technical skills-primarily communication and situation awareness. Future studies could focus on how to prevent the most harmful flow disruptions and develop interventions for improving workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35739430What 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.