Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38819615›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024

A review of minimal access surgery provision and training within the United Kingdom.

Matthew W E Boal, Jessica J Tan, Shameena Sangarapillai, Vimaladhithan Mahendran, Anuradha Thrikandiyur, Alexander Wilkins, Ata Jaffer, Nayaab Abdul-Kader, Hamzah I Choudhry, Rikesh Patel and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. ACPGBI position statement on robotic-assisted colorectal surgical training.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

14 authors.

Matthew W E Boal *Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK. matthew.boal@nhs.net.
Jessica J Tan *Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Shameena SangarapillaiAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Vimaladhithan MahendranAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Anuradha ThrikandiyurAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Alexander WilkinsAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Ata JafferAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Nayaab Abdul-KaderAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Hamzah I ChoudhryAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Rikesh PatelAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Andrew R DayAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Nader K FrancisAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Tamsin E M MorrisonAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy Research Group, London, UK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When combined with healthcare pressures, the exponential growth of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has impacted UK-based training outcomes, including the learning curve to competency. Aim: To ascertain the current provision of RAS and investigate differences in access to minimal access surgical (MAS) facilities and training across the UK. A two-armed electronic survey was conducted. The first arm questioned clinical leads regarding robotic practice and future training provisions. The second investigated trainee and trainers' perceptions of MAS training and facilities. 64% (52/81) of responding trusts utilise a robotic system. The majority (68% [55/81]) have plans to expand or acquire a system within 3 years. 171 responses from 112 UK and Republic of Ireland hospitals were collected for Arm 2. Laparoscopic categories queried whether trainees had access to a formal curriculum, training days and sim-boxes. Most consultants (51.9%) and trainees (51.6%) reported that there was no formal local training curriculum for robotic surgery. Combined responses demonstrated 42.1% (n = 195/463) said "yes", 39.5% (n = 183) "no" and 18.4% (n = 85) "don't know". For combined robotic categories (simulation, training days and operative lists) 28.3% (n = 134/473) responded "yes", 51.6% (n = 244) said "no" and 20.1% (n = 95) said "don't know". This study provides insight into the current provision of robotic-assisted surgery at UK trusts and highlights the need to facilitate regular clinical training and equitable access to MAS simulation within a formal curriculum. This may aid regulation of training in parallel with the expansion of robotic practice and avoid a significant skill acquisition gap and risks to patient safety.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceCurriculumHumansIrelandLaparoscopyLearning CurveMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomHealth care surveysMinimal access surgeryRobotic surgeryTraining

Identifiers

PMID38819615
PMCPMC11142963

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.