ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Characterization of the robotic surgery experience in minimally invasive surgery fellowships from 2010 to 2021.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ALND Experience During Breast Surgical Oncology Fellowship over the Years: An SSO/ASBrS Collaborative Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic availability, not payor status, determines access to robotic emergency general surgery hernia repair in California and Florida.Surgical endoscopy · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery has experienced exponential growth in the past decade. Few studies have evaluated the impact of robotics within minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellowship training programs. The purpose of our study was to examine and characterize recent trends in robotic surgery within MIS fellowship training programs.
methodsDe-identified case log data from the Fellowship Council from 2010 to 2021 were evaluated. Percentage of operations performed with robot assistance over time was assessed and compared to the laparoscopic and open experience. Case logs were further stratified by operative category (e.g., bariatric, hernia, foregut), and robotic experience over time was evaluated for each category. Programs were stratified by percent robot use and the experience over time within each quartile was evaluated.
resultsMIS fellowship training programs with a robotic platform increased from 45.1% (51/113) to 90.4% (123/136) over the study period. The percentage of robotic cases increased from 2.0% (1127/56,033) to 23.2% (16,139/69,496) while laparoscopic cases decreased from 80.2% (44,954/56,033) to 65.3% (45,356/69,496). Hernia and colorectal case categories had the largest increase in robot usage [hernia: 0.7% (62/8614) to 38.4% (4661/12,135); colorectal 4.2% (116/2747) to 31.8% (666/2094)]. When stratified by percentage of robot utilization, current (2020-2021) programs in the > 95th percentile performed 21.8% (3523/16,139) of robotic operations and programs in the > 50th percentile performed 90.0% (14,533/16,139) of all robotic cases. The median number of robotic cases performed per MIS fellow significantly increased from 2010 to 2021 [0 (0-6) to 72.5 (17.8-171.5), p < 0.01].
conclusionsRobotic use in MIS fellowship training programs has grown substantially in the past decade, but the laparoscopic and open experience remains robust. There remains an imbalance with the top 50% of busiest robotic programs performing over 90% of robot trainee cases. The experience in MIS programs varies widely and trainees should examine program case logs closely to confirm parallel interests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37658200What 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.