ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
How effective and sustainable is proctoring in robotic surgery? A retrospective analysis based on interviews with surgeons.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proctoring as advanced surgical learning: the proctor's perspective in robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Impact of proctoring on the learning curve of robotic-assisted low anterior resection: a multicenter retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Challenges and opportunities in the implementation of a new robotic system - a semi-structured interview study with a surgical team.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Implementation of a new robotic system: challenges for the surgical team and ethical concerns about patient safety, a longitudinal questionnaire study.BMJ connections surgery · 2026Article
- Is proctoring in robotic surgery truly helpful? Evaluating general surgeons' perspectives.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- The evolution of training in robotic colorectal surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted surgery is one of several minimally invasive techniques which have become increasingly important in recent years. Education and training are key factors of sustainable success, and surgical tutoring by an experienced external surgeon (proctoring) has emerged as a very useful method of training surgeons. Proctoring enables surgeons to train their respective skills and eventually improve the overall quality of surgical care.
methodsTo evaluate the sustainability of proctoring, we conducted telephone interviews with colleagues who participated in a single-center surgical proctoring program. The aim was to analyze the feasibility of the concept for being established in the future, how well it suits the surgeons (depending on their individual work experience), and which areas of clinical practice would benefit from proctoring. Furthermore, the surgeons provided free-text comments to the questions on a feedback form handed out after the proctoring.
resultsSurgical skills were significantly enhanced and operating times were reduced after proctoring. Given favorable structural conditions, the number of cases and the case-mix index were also significantly increased. It was found that the learning needs of surgeons differ, depending on their medical function, work experience, and the frequency of robotic surgery. On the feedback forms, proctoring was consistently rated as a positive and supportive measure.
conclusionsProctoring is an important aspect of the individual development of surgeons. Depending on learning needs, a structured curriculum is crucial and should be established for the future. Regular feedback modules should be a part of any surgical training concept.
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.