ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery at the operational level: an investigation of surgeons' perspectives.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The era of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: is the robot ready to replace laparoscopy for extended left pancreatectomy?Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Global benchmarks for robotic liver resection: Eastern excellence calls for reevaluation in the West.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Qualitative perspectives of early surgeon users on the value of the daVinci 5 surgical system.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Transforming thyroid disease education: AI and virtual technologies in residency training.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Impact of case-specific learning goal on robotic-assisted surgery care delivery.Global surgical education : journal of the Association for Surgical Education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Robotics Committee of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) conducted a study of surgeons' perspectives on robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) as compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS) in four domains: performance, requirements, challenges, and surgical care outcomes.
methodsAn exploratory sequential mixed-methods study was performed with a thematic analysis of surgeon interviews using the framework method, followed by an online survey of SAGES Robotics Committee members. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA were utilized for analysis.
resultsSeven robotic surgeons (3 female, 4 male) were interviewed. The primary themes were that RAS outperformed LS in (1) device performance, (2) intraoperative teaching, and (3) physical fatigue. Three perceived drawbacks of RAS compared to LS were(1) requiring more resources, (2) mechanical malfunction, and (3) care delivery cost. 55 of 92 surgeon committee members (59.8%) completed the survey. 50.9% (28/55) were male, 80% (44/55) practiced in an academic setting, and 70.9% (39/55) learned RAS during residency/fellowship training. Survey results were consistent with interview themes. Participants indicated that RAS improved performance and was associated with improved patient outcomes. They recognized the relative increased cost, the lack of tactile feedback, logistical challenges, and the increased demands of operative staff. 36.4% (20/55) surgeons ranked "AI-assisted navigation/guidance" as the "most wanted" new RAS function.
conclusionThe findings from this study provide useful insights into surgeon perspectives related to RAS as it compares with laparoscopy and desired areas for new RAS developments that may be helpful to surgical organizations and industry partners alike.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.