ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Satisfaction of surgeons with the current state of training in minimally invasive surgery: a survey among German surgeons.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of laparoscopic performance using low-cost laparoscopy simulators versus state-of-the-art simulators: a multi-center prospective, randomized crossover trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Comparison of distance versus in-person laparoscopy training using a low-cost laparoscopy simulator-a randomized controlled multi-center trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Trial
- Research Trends and Hotspots in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis.International journal of women's health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires intense education and training with structured supervision and feedback. However, a standardized training structure is lacking in Germany. This nationwide survey aimed to assess the current state of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training and factors impacting surgeons' satisfaction.
methodsBetween July and October 2021, an online survey was conducted among general, abdominal, and thoracic surgeons in Germany. The survey collected data on department size, individual operative experience, availability of MIS training equipment and curricula, and individual satisfaction with training. A linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate factors influencing the surgeons' satisfaction with the MIS training.
resultsA total of 1008 surgeons participated in the survey, including residents (26.1%), fellows (14.6%), attendings (43.8%), and heads of departments (15.2%). Of the respondents, 57.4% reported having access to MIS training equipment, 29.8% and 26% had a curriculum for skills lab MIS training and intraoperative MIS training, respectively. In multivariate linear regression analysis, strongest predictors for surgeons' satisfaction with skills lab MIS training and intraoperative training were the availability of respective training curricula (skills lab: β 12.572; p < 0.001 & intraoperative: β 16.541; p < 0.001), and equipment (β 5.246; p = 0.012 & β 4.295; p = 0.037), and experience as a first surgeon in laparoscopy (β 12.572; p < 0.001 & β 3.748; p = 0.007). Additionally, trainees and teachers differed in their satisfaction factors.
conclusionGermany lacks standardized training curricula and sufficient access to MIS training equipment. Trainees and teachers have distinct factors influencing their satisfaction with MIS training. Standardized curricula, equipment accessibility, and surgical experience are crucial for improving surgeons' satisfaction with training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.