ArticleAnnals of thoracic surgery short reports2025
Novel Robotic Esophagogastric Anastomosis Simulation Model for Skill Development and Training.
Article in Annals of thoracic surgery short reports, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophagogastric anastomosis is a critical step of esophagectomy. We aimed to develop a novel robotic esophagectomy simulator with high rates of fidelity and educational value for trainee surgeons to advance these skills in a low-risk setting. Methods: A porcine esophagus-stomach block was secured on a platform resembling the anatomy during an esophagectomy, and a da Vinci Xi (Intuitive Surgical) robotic system was docked above it. Participants completed 5 key steps (creating the gastric conduit, transecting the esophagus, making the gastrotomy and esophagotomy, creating the anastomosis, and sewing the common enterotomy). The model was assessed through surveys under domains of fidelity (surgical field, reality of materials, anatomy, and experience) and value as a training tool on a scale of 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Results: Of 14 participants, 8 (57.1%) were women, 9 (64.3%) were integrated cardiothoracic surgery residents, 1 (7.1%) was a thoracic-track resident, and 10 (71.4%) were in postgraduate year 4 or higher. Participants thought most aspects of the model had high fidelity, including the anatomy of conduit (4.8 ± 0.4) and proximal esophagus (4.9 ± 0.4), realism of the stomach (4.9 ± 0.4) and esophagus (4.9 ± 0.4), stapling (4.7 ± 0.6), suturing (4.8 ± 0.4), and tissue handling (4.4 ± 0.6). Participants rated the model highly overall (4.7 ± 0.5) and as a training tool (4.9 ± 0.4), with strong interrater reliability (0.69). Conclusions: The robotic esophagogastric simulation model demonstrated high fidelity and value as a training tool, suggesting its potential effectiveness for surgeons with limited experience. However, it warrants further refinement to address limitations and to optimize its value as a training tool.
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.