Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40781714›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Training the trainees in robotic surgery - a pilot scheme in the United Kingdom.

Mohammed Al-Ani, Samuel Massias, Panduka Jayawardena, Esha Khanderia, Joshua Franklyn, Khawar Hashmi, Vanash Patel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors.

Mohammed Al-AniDepartment of Surgery, West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD18 0HB, UK.
Samuel MassiasDepartment of Surgery, West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD18 0HB, UK.
Panduka JayawardenaDepartment of Surgery, West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD18 0HB, UK.
Esha KhanderiaDepartment of Surgery, West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD18 0HB, UK.
Joshua FranklynDepartment of Surgery, West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD18 0HB, UK.
Khawar HashmiDepartment of Surgery, West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD18 0HB, UK.
Vanash PatelDepartment of Surgery, West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, WD18 0HB, UK. vanash.patel06@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraining in robotic colorectal surgery is predominantly confined to senior trainees and consultants. The lack of robotic training of the general surgical specialist trainee (ST) in the formative stages of training has led to widespread discontent among them. This paper describes a pilot scheme to establish a robotic training programme for general surgical STs in a district general hospital.

methodsSix STs were enrolled between May 2023 and October 2023. A training programme was established using the CMR Surgical Versius robotic system, which consisted of online modules, a first assist course, performance-tracked virtual simulation, basic surgical skills assessment, and live operating. The programme was evaluated using the Royal College of Surgeons Participant Feedback Questionnaire (Likert scale 1–5).

resultsTrainees ranging from ST4 to ST8 took a median of 4.5 days (IQR 2) to complete 16 performance-tracked virtual simulation tasks. There was a significant variance in the number of attempts to pass each task (p < 0.0001), with STs finding endoscope control, suturing and knot-tying the hardest tasks to pass. There was a significant variance between the STs in the number of attempts to pass all the tasks (p = 0.02), with the ST4 trainee performing significantly better than the ST7 and ST8 trainees (p < 0.05). The STs participated in 43 operations (anterior resection = 13, abdominoperineal resection = 4, right hemicolectomy = 10, loop colostomy = 1 and cholecystectomy = 15). There were no complications related to training. Feedback on the programme was positive with a median score of 5 (IQR 0.75) for all sections of the questionnaire.

conclusionsA structured robotic training programme to democratise robotic surgical training, especially among junior trainees who may not have prior laparoscopic surgical experience is safe and feasible. Replicating similar schemes in other hospitals may improve robotic access and training for STs.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansPilot ProjectsSimulation TrainingUnited KingdomMedical educationRobotic assisted surgerySpecialist training

Identifiers

PMID40781714
PMCPMC12333210

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.