ArticleSurgery2024
Objective performance indicators during specific steps of robotic right colectomy can differentiate surgeon expertise.
Article in Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis learning curve: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing effectiveness and skill transferability in multi-platform simulated training for robotic surgical skills: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Association between objective performance indicators and patient outcomes in robotic surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Articulation analysis of robotic staplers in rectal surgery.Surgery today · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent surgical assessment tools are subjective and nonscalable. Objective performance indicators, calculated from robotic systems data, provide automated data regarding surgeon movements and robotic arm kinematics. We identified objective performance indicators that significantly differed among expert and trainee surgeons during specific steps of robotic right colectomy.
methodsEndoscopic videos were annotated to delineate surgical steps during robotic right colectomies. Objective performance indicators were compared during mesenteric dissection, ascending colon mobilization, hepatic flexure mobilization, and bowel preparation for transection.
resultsTwenty-five robotic right colectomy procedures (461 total surgical steps) performed by 2 experts and 8 trainees were analyzed. Experts exhibited faster camera acceleration and jerk during all steps, as well as faster dominant and nondominant arm acceleration and dominant arm jerk during all steps except distal bowel preparation. During mesenteric dissection, experts used faster camera and dominant arm velocity. During medial-to-lateral ascending colon mobilization, experts used less-dominant wrist yaw and pitch, faster nondominant arm velocity, shorter dominant arm path length, and shorter moving times for camera, dominant arm, and nondominant arm. During lateral-to-medial ascending colon mobilization, experts had faster dominant and nondominant arm velocity and third-arm acceleration. During hepatic flexure mobilization, experts exhibited more camera movements, greater velocity for camera, dominant and nondominant arms, and faster third-arm acceleration. During distal bowel preparation, experts used greater dominant wrist articulation, faster camera velocity, and longer nondominant arm path length. During proximal bowel preparation, experts demonstrated faster nondominant arm velocity.
conclusionObjective performance indicators can differentiate experts from trainees during distinct steps of robotic right colectomy. These automated, objective and scalable metrics can provide personalized feedback for trainees.
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.