ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery training in France: a nation-wide survey from young surgeons.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. 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.
- Robotic thoracic surgery training in the UK and Republic of Ireland: national survey of trainee exposure, preparedness, and barriers.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Contribution of cardiac surgeons in transcatheter aortic valve replacement activity in France.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvaluate theoretical and practical training of thoracic surgeons-in-training in robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) in France.
methodsA survey was distributed to thoracic surgeons-in-training in France from November 2022 to February 2023.
resultsWe recruited 101 thoracic surgeons-in-training (77% response rate). Over half had access to a surgical robotics system at their current institution. Most (74%) considered robotic surgery training essential, 90% had attended a robotic procedure. Only 18% had performed a complete thoracic robotic procedure as the main operator. A complete RATS procedure was performed by 42% of fellows and 6% of residents. Of the remaining surgeons, 23% had performed part of a robotic procedure. Theoretical courses and simulation are well developed; 72% of residents and 91% of fellows had undergone simulation training in the operating room, at training facilities, or during congress amounting to <10 h (for 73% of the fellows and residents), 10-20 h (17%), 20-30 h (8%) or >30 h (3%). Access to RATS was ≥1 day/week in 71% of thoracic departments with robotic access. Fellows spent a median of 2 (IQR 1-3) semesters in departments performing robotic surgery. Compared with low-volume centres, trainees at high-volume centres performed significantly more complete robotic procedures (47% vs 13%; P = 0.001), as did fellows compared with residents.
conclusionsFew young surgeons perform complete thoracic robotic procedures during practical training, and access remains centre dependent. Opportunities increase with seniority and exposure; however, increasing availability of robotic devices, theoretical formation, and simulation courses will increase opportunities.
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.