ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Proctoring in robot-assisted urologic surgery: insights from a multicenter survey.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends and hotspots of robot-assisted urological telesurgery: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes and costs of robotic assisted, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy: a contemporary analysis of national inpatient sample data.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Is proctoring in robotic surgery truly helpful? Evaluating general surgeons' perspectives.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of Robotic-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and open radical nephrectomy: Utilization, Costs, and clinical outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40616608What 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.