ArticleCureus2024
Transferability of Technical Skills Across Robotic Surgery Platforms: A Scoping Review.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pre-Procedural Robotic Surgery Curricula: A Systematic Review and Thematic Meta-Synthesis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Review
- White paper on effective preacquisition evaluation of soft tissue robotic surgery platforms for healthcare institutions.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic primary ventral hernia repair-a multi-national Delphi expert consensus.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Exploring the effects of closed-console vs. open-console robotic-assisted surgery systems on team dynamics in the operating room.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic surgery utilisation and uptake.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Total Mesorectal Excision with New Robotic Platforms: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the application of robotic approaches to surgery continues to broaden, new consoles have been introduced to the market. Due to the global utilization of a single platform, previously validated curricula have not been assessed on new robotic systems. Surgery by its nature occurs in a high-stakes environment, potentially exacerbated by non-standardized robotic systems. The aim of this review is to critique the evidence available regarding the transferability of technical skills across robotic platforms. A scoping review utilizing the Medline (Pubmed) and Cochrane Databases was conducted. Full texts were reviewed and appraised. Selected articles were eligible for inclusion if they investigated the ability or implications of the transfer of skill across robotic platforms. Data was extracted, coded inductively, and themes synthesized. NVIVO software was used as an adjunct for this qualitative analysis. Following the removal of duplicates a total of 278 papers were screened according to the eligibility criteria. Fifty full-text articles were reviewed and four met the criterion for inclusion. Novices' performance across platforms was comparable. Increasing levels of prior robotic experience revealed an improvement in technical performance on a novel robotic platform. Safety metrics appear comparable across systems. Quantifying learning curves across robotic platforms and their implications for the robotic surgeon in training remains to be determined. Future research needs to address the gaps in the literature by clearly defining the extent of technical skills transfer between robotic platforms. These factors will guide the next iteration of surgical training curriculums and regulations for robotic surgery.
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.