ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparisons between aviation and robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology: lessons from safety practices in high-risk industries.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-risk industries such as aviation have long since understood that technical competencies alone do not guarantee safety or success. Surgical disciplines including robot-assisted surgery (RAS) have achieved this understanding relatively recently, despite also being considered high-risk. Both disciplines face challenges from technical (TS) and non-technical skill (NTS) perspectives, requiring calm, controlled, and skilled management to overcome adversity. Whilst aviation demonstrates admirable safety records, RAS has been highlighted as a potential health technology hazard. Comparisons are increasingly being drawn between the technology, culture, safety practices, and training modalities of RAS and aviation. Aviation recognises NTS limitations and reflects this through its simulation-based training. Whilst the amended intraoperative dynamics of RAS constitute unique NTS challenges, the inclusion of NTS within formalised RAS training curricula is comparatively negligible. Virtual-reality (VR) simulation in aviation allows pilots to achieve and maintain their TS and NTS competencies. Simulation's role in the development and maintenance of RAS competencies is not treated with parity; however, RAS VR simulation has the potential to improve the feasibility of the integration of simulation with RAS training. The incorporation of aviation-based safety practices in RAS needs further consideration, given that surgery remains behind its high-risk counterparts. RAS stands to benefit from adopting key components of their practices, including work environment, culture, simulation, and the standardisation and regulatory oversight of its training programmes. Through implementing established safety practices utilised in other high-risk industries, RAS has the potential to reduce the frequency and severity of adverse events, with patients becoming the ultimate beneficiaries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40483645What 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.