Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107481›Full record

Observational studySurgical endoscopy2024

Skill progress during a dedicated societal robotic surgery training curriculum including several robotic surgery platforms.

Barbara Seeliger, Matteo Pavone, Wolfgang Schröder, Colin M Krüger, Christiane J Bruns, Giovanni Scambia, Didier Mutter, Jacques Marescaux, Hans F Fuchs

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

9 authors.

Barbara SeeligerInstitute of Image-Guided Surgery, IHU Strasbourg, 1, Place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France. barbara.seeliger@ihu-strasbourg.eu.ORCID 0000-0001-7451-7545
Matteo PavoneInstitute of Image-Guided Surgery, IHU Strasbourg, 1, Place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France.
Wolfgang SchröderDepartment of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Colin M KrügerDepartment of Surgery, Center of Robotics, University Hospital Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor-Fontane, Rüdersdorf, Germany.
Christiane J BrunsDepartment of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Giovanni ScambiaUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Didier MutterInstitute of Image-Guided Surgery, IHU Strasbourg, 1, Place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France.
Jacques MarescauxIRCAD, Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Hans F FuchsDepartment of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche "Programme d'investissements d'avenir" France 2030 (Reference ANR-10-IAHU-02)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted procedures are increasingly common, and several systems are available for thoraco-abdominal surgery. Specific structured training is necessary, while access to these systems is still limited. This study aimed to assess surgeons' skill progress during consecutive training days of a curriculum with exposure to different robotic systems.

methodsThis prospective observational study enrolled 47 surgeons with anonymized analysis of SimNow™ simulator performance scores and dedicated questionnaires after written consent. The primary outcome was the overall score, based on economy of motion, time to complete the exercise, and penalty for errors. Course participants in 2022-2023 had chosen 2 full hands-on days on Da Vinci® consoles with either virtual reality (VR) simulation training using the SimNow (n = 21, 44.7%) or digestive surgery procedures with a live animal model (n = 26, 55.3%). In all participants, training on Da Vinci® systems included console functions and principles of docking, camera, and instrument use for console and procedural training. They additionally had access to introductory dry-lab and VR simulator exercises on the Versius, Hugo

resultsThe participants (16F/31M, median age 40 years, range 29-58) from various surgical specialties (general/visceral/vascular) had no (n = 35, 74.5%) or little (n = 12, 25.5%) robotic experience including bedside assistance only and 20 (42.6%) had robotic simulator experience. The demographic variables fully completed by 44/47 participants (93.6%) and choice of module had no significant impact on the primary outcome. The considerable performance improvement from days 1 to 2 was exemplified by a significantly increased economy of motion and decreased amount of excessive force.

conclusionRobotic surgical training is increasingly complex with several systems on the market. Within a dedicated robotic surgery curriculum and based on integrated performance metrics, a significant improvement of skill levels was observed in a relatively short period of time.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCurriculumRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesSimulation TrainingVirtual RealityRobotic surgerySimulationTrainingVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID39107481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.