Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36414871›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Multidisciplinary perceptions on robotic surgical training: the robot is a stimulus for surgical education change.

Kristen M Jogerst, Taylor M Coe, Emil Petrusa, Jordan Neil, Victor Davila, David Pearson, Roy Phitayakorn, Denise Gee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Opportunities and obstacles in harnessing intraoperative data.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kristen M JogerstDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Taylor M CoeDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. tcoe@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3514-6993
Emil PetrusaDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jordan NeilDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Victor DavilaDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
David PearsonDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Roy PhitayakornDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Denise GeeDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unclear how to best establish successful robotic training programs or if subspecialty robotic program principles can be adapted for general surgery practice. The objective of this study is to understand the perspectives of high-volume robotic surgical educators on best practices in robotic surgery training and to provide recommendations transferable across surgical disciplines.

methodsThis multi-institutional qualitative analysis involved semi-structured interviews with high-volume robotic educators from academic general surgery (AGS), community general surgery (CGS), urology (URO), and gynecology (GYN). Purposeful sampling and snowballing ensured high-volume status and geographically balanced representation across four strata. Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and independently, inductively coded. A codebook was developed and refined using constant comparative method until interrater reliability kappa reached 0.95. A qualitative thematic, framework analysis was completed.

resultsThirty-four interviews were completed: AGS (n = 9), CGS (n = 8), URO (n = 9), and GYN (n = 8) resulting in 40 codes and four themes. Theme 1: intangibles of culture, resident engagement, and faculty and administrative buy-in are as important as tangibles of robot and simulator access, online modules, and case volumes. Theme 2: robotic OR integration stresses the trainee-autonomy versus patient-safety balance. Theme 3: trainees acquire robotic skills along individual learning curves; benchmark assessments track progress. Theme 4: AGS can learn from URO and GYN through multidisciplinary collaboration but must balance pre-existing training program use with context-specific curricular needs.

conclusionsRobotic surgical experts emphasize the importance of universal training paradigms, such as a strong educational culture that balances autonomy and patient safety, collaboration between disciplines, and routine assessments for continuous growth. Often, introduction and acceptance of the robot serves as a stimulus to discuss broader surgical education change.

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrologyEducational StatusHumansReproducibility of ResultsCross-disciplinaryEducational changeQualitative analysisRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID36414871
OpenAlexW4309651319

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.