Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40616608›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

Proctoring in robot-assisted urologic surgery: insights from a multicenter survey.

Gianluigi Califano, Francesco Di Bello, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Simone Morra, Federico Polverino, Massimiliano Creta, Paolo Verze, Elisabetta Costantini, Michele Di Dio, Tommaso Forlani and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
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. Article
  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

24 authors.

Gianluigi CalifanoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini N°5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Francesco Di BelloDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini N°5, 80138, Naples, Italy. fran.dibello12@gmail.com.
Claudia Collà RuvoloDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini N°5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Simone MorraDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini N°5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Federico PolverinoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini N°5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Massimiliano CretaDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini N°5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Paolo VerzeDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.
Elisabetta CostantiniDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia; Andrological and Urogynecological Clinic, Santa Maria Terni Hospital, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
Michele Di DioDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, SS Annunziata Hospital, Cosenza, Italy.
Tommaso ForlaniDivision of Urology, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy.
Flavio ForteDivision of Urology, Vannini Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Pier Paolo PronteraDivision of Urology, SS Annunziata Hospital, Taranto, Italy.
Carmelo IppolitoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Vincenzo LorussoDivision of Urology, IRCCS Crob, Rionero in Vulture, Italy.
Guevar MaselliDivision of Urology, Mazzini Hospital, Teramo, Italy.
Federico NarcisiDivision of Urology, Mazzini Hospital, Teramo, Italy.
Giuseppe MorgiaDivision of Urology, Mediterranean Oncological Institute (IOM), University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Raffaele RanavoloDivision of Urology, SG Moscati Hospital, Aversa, Italy.
Omid SedighDepartment of Urology and Reconstructive Andrology, Humanitas Gradenigo Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Giovanni VitulloDivision of Urology, San Marino State Hospital, Cailungo, San Marino.
Giacomo CicchettiDivision of Urology, M Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy.
Giovanni ZarrelliDivision of Urology, Cardinal Massaia Hospital, Asti, Italy.
Ciro ImbimboDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini N°5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Nicola LongoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini N°5, 80138, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The implementation of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) requires structured educational models to ensure safety, efficacy, and procedural standardization. Among these, proctoring, where experienced robotic surgeons support peers during their early procedures, plays a pivotal role. However, specific evidence in the current literature remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the modalities, perceived value, and educational relevance of proctoring in RALS. A nationwide, five-part survey was administered to 16 Italian urologists who were proctored by a single experienced robotic surgeon across 100 consecutive procedures. Respondents represented diverse geographical areas and institutional settings. The questionnaire investigated demographics, general perceptions of proctoring, its role during the initiation of robotic programs and new procedures adoption, and previous surgical experience. Data were analyzed descriptively and visualized using Likert plots, heatmaps, and pie charts. All surgeons rated the proctor's physical presence as critical, especially during early cases and new robotic procedures. Proctoring was considered essential for enhancing surgical safety, standardizing techniques, improving operative time management, and fostering effective team dynamics. It was highly valued for developing technical skills. Additional elements such as face-to-face interaction, preoperative planning, and dual-console availability were seen as valuable. The suggested number of proctored cases was 10-20 for initial training and 5-10 for new procedures. Limitations include small sample size and self-reported data. Structured proctoring is essential for safe and consistent RALS education. In-house mentorship programs should be systematically integrated into robotic surgery pathways to support autonomy and institutional consistency.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrologic Surgical ProceduresAdultClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedSurgeonsSurveys and QuestionnairesProctoringRobot assistanceRobotic platformTelesurgeryUrology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.