Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329090›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

A national cross-sectional analysis of stakeholder views regarding the practice and governance of robotic surgery.

Stefanie M Croghan, Christina A Fleming, Ruaidhrí McVey, Tom Moran, Gary Fitzmaurice, Emeka Okereke, Dara A O ' Keeffe, Fiachra E Rowan, Kevin Barry, Barry B McGuire and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Stefanie M CroghanDepartment of Surgical Affairs, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. stefaniecroghan@rcsi.ie.
Christina A FlemingDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Ruaidhrí McVeyDepartment of Gynaecology, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Tom MoranDepartment of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Gary FitzmauriceDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Emeka OkerekeDepartment of Surgical Affairs, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Dara A O ' KeeffeDepartment of Surgical Affairs, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Fiachra E RowanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Waterford, Waterford, Ireland.
Kevin BarryDepartment of Surgical Affairs, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Barry B McGuireDepartment of Surgical Affairs, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
RCSI National Leads in Robotic Surgery

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study objective was to explore the views of key national stakeholders regarding the practice and governance of robotic surgery in Ireland. A literature review and analysis by two expert robotic surgeons was used to design a customised questionnaire, interrogating respondent perceptions of key robotic surgical areas, including surgical practice, governance, audit and key performance indicators (KPIs). The questionnaire was disseminated via specialty representatives, inviting responses from robotic surgeons, senior trainees, bedside assistants, clinical nurse managers, hospital management and industry partners. The responses were compiled and analysed, with thematic analysis applied to free-text data. Responses were received from 87 stakeholders, with representation from all invited professional groups, surgical specialties and national geographical regions. The largest respondent cohort was consultant robotic surgeons (n = 61); estimated response rate 76.3%. Most respondents were in favour of proctorship/mentorship arrangements for early-career surgeons, with support expressed for external proctors (80.5%, n = 70), internal proctors (88.5%, n = 77) and peer-to-peer mentoring (87.4%, n = 76). The minimum average number of robotic cases necessary for a trained surgeon to maintain competency was most frequently perceived as 1 per fortnight (39.3%, n = 24), or 1 per week (37.7%, n = 23). The recording of KPIs was believed to be important at both unit level [93.1% (n = 81) agree] and surgeon level (94.3% (n = 82) agree). Ninety-five percent of respondents (n = 83), thought institutions should have robotic governance committees. Strong support [83.9% (n = 73)] was expressed for the creation of a national guideline or governance document for the practice of robotic surgery. This national, pan-specialty robotic surgery stakeholder survey is the first of its kind. It identifies strong national support for continued advances in the training and governance of robotic surgery, with consensus for institutional oversight of robotic surgery and the development of a national guidelines for the conduct of robotic surgery.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelRobotic Surgical ProceduresCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIrelandSurgeonsSurveys and QuestionnairesCase volumeCommunicationFuture planningGovernanceIndex proceduresIndicativeIrelandKey performance indicators (KPIs)Robotic surgerySafetyStakeholdersTeam workTraining

Identifiers

PMID40329090
PMCPMC12055871

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.