ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Utilizing objective performance indicators to assess resident autonomy during robotic cholecystectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ruling the robot: a phase-based analysis of resident autonomy across core robotic general surgery procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Measurement of trainee autonomy in robotic-assisted lung resections using objective performance indicators.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Objective performance indicators provide a novel, quantitative method to evaluate surgeon proficiency in robotic lobectomy training.JTCVS open · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current evaluation of surgical resident operative autonomy consists primarily of self-report and is prone to bias. Objective performance indicators (OPIs) generated from the da Vinci Surgical System capture objective intraoperative data providing an opportunity to evaluate the intraoperative resident experience more accurately. This study investigates the ability of OPIs to describe resident autonomy during robotic cholecystectomy.
methodsThe Intuitive Data Recorder captured OPI data during 82 robotic cholecystectomies performed at a single high-volume academic center between July 1st, 2020, and April 30th, 2023. Autonomy was characterized by evaluating surgeon-specific OPIs: instrument active time (AT) and path length (PL). OPIs were evaluated for the overall procedure, the hepatocystic triangle dissection, and the gallbladder fossa dissection. Analysis was stratified by trainee level and case complexity as defined by the Parkland Grading Scale.
resultsOf the 82 cholecystectomies, surgical trainees participated in 77 cases, 59.7% (n = 46) involved senior trainees (PGY 4-7), and 40.3% (n = 31) involved junior trainees (PGY 2-3). By median AT, senior trainees performed 60% of the cholecystectomy (median AT 0.6 [IQR, 0.5 - 0.8]), significantly more compared to junior trainees at 40% (AT 0.4 [IQR 0.3 - 0.5]; P < 0.001). Junior residents had the least autonomy during the hepatocystic triangle dissection (P < 0.05) whereas no significant difference was present between annotated steps for senior trainees (P > 0.05). Resident autonomy did not vary significantly based on case complexity (P > 0.05). Overall, 76.1% of senior residents performed at least half of the cholecystectomy, significantly more compared to 32.3% of junior trainees (P < 0.001).
conclusionOPIs differentiated the surgical trainee experience during a robotic cholecystectomy. While senior trainees performed more of the procedure, there was significant within-group heterogeneity regarding the level of autonomy allotted. Moving forward, OPIs can be a valuable tool for characterizing resident autonomy and objectively informing surgical training curricula.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39820603What 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.