Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36418717›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2023

Transfer of open and laparoscopic skills to robotic surgery: a systematic review.

Baldev Chahal, Abdullatif Aydın, Mohammad S Ali Amin, Kelly Ong, Azhar Khan, Muhammad Shamim Khan, Kamran Ahmed, Prokar Dasgupta

Abstract readSystematic Review
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 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Baldev ChahalMRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, 5Th Floor Southwark Wing, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Abdullatif AydınMRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, 5Th Floor Southwark Wing, London, SE1 9RT, UK. abdullatif.aydin@kcl.ac.uk.
Mohammad S Ali AminOxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, Oxford, UK.
Kelly OngDepartment of Urology, Princess Royal University Hospital, Orpington, UK.
Azhar KhanDepartment of Urology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Muhammad Shamim KhanUrology Centre, Guy's and St, Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Kamran AhmedMRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, 5Th Floor Southwark Wing, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Prokar DasguptaMRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, 5Th Floor Southwark Wing, London, SE1 9RT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to its advantages over open surgery and conventional laparoscopy, uptake of robot-assisted surgery has rapidly increased. It is important to know whether the existing open or laparoscopic skills of robotic novices shorten the robotic surgery learning curve, potentially reducing the amount of training required. This systematic review aims to assess psychomotor skill transfer to the robot in clinical and simulated settings. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were systematically searched in accordance with PRISMA guidelines from inception to August 2021 alongside website searching and citation chaining. Article screening, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Outcomes included simulator performance metrics or in the case of clinical studies, peri- and post-operative metrics. Twenty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria. All studies were judged to be at high or moderate overall risk of bias. Results were narratively synthesised due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Two of the three studies assessing open surgical skill transfer found evidence of successful skill transfer while nine of twenty-seven studies evaluating laparoscopic skill transfer found no evidence. Skill transfer from both modalities is most apparent when advanced robotic tasks are performed in the initial phase of the learning curve but quality and methodological limitations of the existing literature prevent definitive conclusions. The impact of incorporating laparoscopic simulation into robotic training curricula and on the cost effectiveness of training should be investigated.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceComputer SimulationHumansLaparoscopicOpen surgeryRoboticsSimulationSkill transfer

Identifiers

PMID36418717
PMCPMC10374669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.