Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36413255›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2023

Systematic review of academic robotic surgery curricula.

Mustafa Tamim Alam Khan, Ronit Patnaik, Christina S Lee, Conner M Willson, Virgil K Demario, Robert W Krell, Robert B Laverty

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

7 authors.

Mustafa Tamim Alam Khan *Department of Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX, 78229-3900, USA. khanm1@uthscsa.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5430-7572
Ronit Patnaik *Department of Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX, 78229-3900, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4288-7896
Christina S LeeDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Conner M WillsonSchool of Osteopathic Medicine, Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA, USA.
Virgil K DemarioSchool of Osteopathic Medicine, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Robert W KrellDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Robert B LavertyDepartment of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of robotic surgery has increased exponentially in the United States. Despite this uptick in popularity, no standardized training pathway exists for surgical residents or practicing surgeons trying to cross-train onto the platform. We set out to perform a systematic review of existing literature to better describe and analyze existing robotic surgical training curricula amongst academic surgery programs. A systematic electronic search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and EBSCO databases was performed for articles describing simulation in robotic surgery from January 2010 to May 2022. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords used to conduct this search were "Robotic," "Surgery," "Robotic Surgery," "Training," "Curriculum," "Education," and "Residency Program." A total of 110 articles were identified for the systematic review. After screening the titles and abstracts, a total of 36 full-text original articles were included in this systematic review. Of these, 24 involved robotic surgery curricula designed to teach general robotic skills, whereas the remaining 12 were for teaching procedure specific skills. Of the 24 studies involving general robotic skills, 13 included didactics as a part of the curriculum, 23 utilized virtual reality trainers, 3 used inanimate tissue, and 1 used live animal models. Of the 12 papers reviewed regarding procedure specific curricula, seven involved urologic procedures (radical prostatectomy and nephrectomy), two involved general surgical procedures (colectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery), two involved obstetrics and gynecology procedures (hysterectomy with myomectomy and sacrocolpopexy, hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy) and one involved a cardiothoracic surgery procedure (robotic internal thoracic artery harvest). With the rapid implementation of robotic surgery, training programs have been tasked with the responsibility of ensuring their trainees are adequately proficient in the platform prior to graduation. However, due to the lack of uniformity between surgical training programs, when it comes to robotic surgical experience, a strong need persists for a standardized national robotics training curriculum.

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnimalsColectomyComputer SimulationCurriculumFemaleHumansMalePregnancyRobotic curriculumRobotic surgerySurgerySurgical curriculumSurgical education

Identifiers

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.