Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2025
Robotic malfunction checklist: a guide to operating room safety, efficiency, and surgeon autonomy.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceSurgical robots encounter malfunctions requiring swift resolution, impacting patient safety and surgical efficiency. A Robotic Malfunction Checklist (RMC) may enhance surgical team autonomy reduce stress and intraoperative downtime.
objectiveTo assess the efficacy of a step-by-step RMC for troubleshooting surgical robot errors through a randomized controlled trial simulation.
designAn IRB-approved study conducted a needs analysis to identify common robotic errors. A specialized RMC was then developed and tested in a randomized simulation setting, utilizing the da Vinci Xi system.
settingSimulation environment utilizing the da Vinci Xi surgical robot system.
participantsThirty-one participants, including surgery residents and attendings were allocated to either the control (n = 16) or experimental groups (n = 15).
interventionsControl group participants addressed errors conventionally, while experimental group members utilized the RMC for troubleshooting. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Post-survey data, including NASA Task Load Index (TLX) scores were collected to assess task load and confidence in troubleshooting. Statistical analysis involved the Mann-Whitney U test and Fischer's exact test.
resultsThe experimental group significantly expedited resolution of the third complex error (3.9 min; IQR = 5.2; P < 0.01), representing a 43% reduction in resolution time. Task load was notably lower in the experimental group across all TLX domains for error 3 and in 4 out of 5 domains for error 2 (P < .05). Experimental group members expressed increased confidence in troubleshooting in live patient settings if provided with the RMC. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ARMC reduced the time to resolve robotic errors and decreased stress load on surgeons. These promising findings advocate for further evaluation and potential implementation of the RMC in live operative settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40696214What 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.