ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024
Robotic endovascular peripheral arterial interventions: a proposal of a new learning model.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study tests a suitable model for training robot-assisted peripheral vascular interventions and examines the learning curves of endovascular surgeons with different levels of previous experience and main focus of work, analyzing procedure time, fluoroscopy time, use of contrast, and radiation emission.
methodsSixteen endovascular surgeons with different previous experience and training performed nine manual and 18 robotic angioplasties using the CorPath GRX platform on a 3D-printed life-size immersed infragenicular arterial phantom.
resultsAll participants considered the model reliable. When analyzing manual angioplasty outcomes, the juniors took significantly longer to perform angioplasties than the seniors (p=0.044). Among the seniors, interventionists were faster only on the first angioplasty (p=0.046). Analysis of the robotic angioplasty results showed that only one junior failed to cannulate one of the target arteries once. The total duration, fluoroscopy time, and radiation emission did not differ between juniors and seniors (p=0.095, p=0.60, and p=0.64, respectively). In addition, the learning curves for the maximum benefit required two attempts for procedure duration, one for fluoroscopy time, and three for radiation emission. There were no significant differences between senior vascular surgeons and interventionists. Among juniors, residents had a significantly lower procedure duration (p=0.042) and radiation emission (p=0.046) only for the first angioplasty.
conclusionThe learning curves for robotic peripheral arterial interventions were short, with a plateau for the procedure and fluoroscopy times and radiation emission after the third attempt. We observed no differences in the learning curves in relation to previous experience or training.
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.