ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Fellow perceptions of robotic surgery preparedness for fellowship.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany surgical fellowship programs incorporate robotic surgery, yet not all residency programs offer robotic training for residents. Given the variability of pre-fellowship robotic exposure, the goal of this study was to explore whether standardized robotic skills assessment would be useful to fellows at the start of their training.
methodsIn partnership with the Fellowship Council, we surveyed current fellows of accredited Thoracic, Colorectal, HPB, and Advanced GI/MIS/Bariatrics/Foregut Fellowship programs. Main outcome measurements included amount of robotic exposure during residency, fellows' robotic skills at the start of fellowship, and fellows' attitudes towards a standardized skills assessment.
resultsIn total, 78 fellows completed the survey. Mean percentage of cases performed robotically during fellowship was 38.1% (SD ± 32.25%). From our respondents, 46% had no robotic curriculum during residency and 86.9% felt a standardized robotic curriculum during residency would have been beneficial. When asked if they started fellowship with adequate robotic skills to operate autonomously, 31% strongly agreed, but 24.4% strongly disagreed. The majority of fellows reported their fellowship program did not conduct an assessment of their robotic skills (71.5%), or provide a specific robotic curriculum (75.6%). On the other hand, 73.3% felt a formal proficiency assessment at the start of fellowship would be helpful for individualized support and training.
conclusionsGiven the significant variability in resident exposure to robotic surgery, a standardized robotic curriculum during residency would likely be beneficial. Additionally, a robotic skills assessment at the start of fellowship could help provide a tailored training experience for fellows interested in this skillset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39317908What 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.