ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Cost analysis of training residents in robotic-assisted surgery.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted extended mesorectal excision: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review of perioperative and long-term outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Teaching landscape of robotic anatomic lung resection: an analysis of the da Vinci system dual console use in the US.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery at the operational level: an investigation of surgeons' perspectives.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Is implementation of robotic-assisted procedures in acute care general surgery cost-effective?Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
- Robotic hernia repair: the trainee "Drag" factor-a single-surgeon 9-year experience.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
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
Abstract
introductionUse of robotic-assisted surgery is increasing, and resident involvement may lead to higher costs. We investigated whether senior resident involvement in noncomplex robotic cholecystectomy (RC) and inguinal hernia (RIH) would take more time and cost more when compared to non-robotic cholecystectomy (NRC) and inguinal hernia repair (NRIH).
methodsWe extracted surgery duration and total cost of NRC, NRIH, RC, and RIH from 7/2016 to 6/2020 with senior resident (PGY4-5) involvement. We excluded complex cases as well as prisoner cases and those with new faculty and research residents. We assessed differences between robotic and non-robotic cases in surgery duration and total cost per minute, using one-way ANOVA.
resultsWe included 1608 cases (non-robotic 1145 vs. robotic 463). On average, RC cases with a senior resident took less time than NRC (179.4 < 185.8, p = 0.401); surgery duration of RIH cases was similar with NRIH cases. The total cost per minute of RC cases with a senior resident on average was $9.30 higher than NRC cases for each minute incurred in the operating room but did not lead to a significant change in overall cost. RIH cases, on the other hand, cost less per minute than NRIH cases (114.1 < 126.5, p = 0.399).
conclusionTraining in robotic surgery is important. Noncomplex RC and RIH involving senior residents were not significantly longer nor did they incur significantly more cost than non-robotic procedures. Senior resident training in noncomplex robotic surgery can be efficient and can be included in the residency curriculum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36471060What 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.