Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39884991›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025

How effective and sustainable is proctoring in robotic surgery? A retrospective analysis based on interviews with surgeons.

Veronika Günther, Frauke Nees, Nicolai Maass, Sören von Otte, Zino Ruchay, Julian Pape, Johannes Ackermann, Ibrahim Alkatout

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Veronika Günther *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3 (House C), 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Frauke Nees *Institute of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel University, Preusserstrasse 1-9, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Nicolai MaassDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3 (House C), 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Sören von OtteUniversity Fertility Center, Ambulanzzentrum des UKSH gGmbH, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3 (House C), 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Zino RuchayDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3 (House C), 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Julian PapeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3 (House C), 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Johannes AckermannDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3 (House C), 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Ibrahim AlkatoutDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3 (House C), 24105, Kiel, Germany. ibrahim.alkatout@uksh.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7194-6034

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgeonsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesFeedbackLearning needsProctoringRobotic surgerySurgeonsSustainability

Identifiers

PMID39884991
PMCPMC11870960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.