ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies: more harm than good?
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 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.
- White paper: robotic cholecystectomy-new technology but safe principles still apply.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Robotic ventral rectopexy videos on youtube: reliability of quality and educational value assessment among raters with different degrees of surgical experience.International journal of colorectal disease · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany surgeons use online videos to learn. However, these videos vary in content, quality, and educational value. In the setting of recent work questioning the safety of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, we aimed (1) to identify highly watched online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, (2) to determine whether these videos demonstrate suboptimal techniques, and (3) to compare videos based on platform.
methodsTwo authors searched YouTube and a members-only Facebook group to identify highly watched videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies. Three members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons Safe Cholecystectomy Task Force then reviewed videos in random order. These three members rated each video using Sanford and Strasberg's six-point criteria for critical view of safety (CVS) scoring and the Parkland grading scale for cholecystitis. We performed regression to determine any association between Parkland grade and CVS score. We also compared scores between the YouTube and Facebook videos using a t test.
resultsWe identified 50 videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, including 25 from YouTube and 25 from Facebook. Of the 50 videos, six demonstrated a top-down approach. The remaining 44 videos received a mean of 2.4 of 6 points for the CVS score (SD = 1.8). Overall, 4 of the 50 videos (8%) received a passing CVS score of 5 or 6. Videos received a mean of 2.4 of 5 points for the Parkland grade (SD = 0.9). Videos on YouTube had lower CVS scores than videos on Facebook (1.9 vs. 2.8, respectively), though this difference was not significant (p = 0.09). By regression, there was no association between Parkland grade and CVS score (p = 0.13).
conclusionPublicly available and closed-group online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy demonstrated inadequate dissection and may be of limited educational value. Future work should center on introducing measures to identify and feature videos with high-quality techniques most useful to surgeons.
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.