ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Standardising robotic system setup: an international expert consensus.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary validity evidence for a platform-specific assessment tool for robotic setup and docking.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- European Delphi consensus on specific training, implementation requirements, and clinical use for the Hugo™ robotic-assisted surgery platform in colorectal procedures.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Development of a platform-specific objective assessment tool for the accreditation of robotic setup and docking.Surgical endoscopy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery has witnessed rapid growth and development, with a concomitant training requirement. However, educational methods can vary, for example, industry or clinician led. This can result in heterogeneous training. This study aimed to develop a standardised method for the setup and docking of a robotic platform through expert consensus.
methodsA steering committee of robotic surgeons, surgical care practitioners, and industry representatives formulated initial statements for an online Delphi consensus. The process involved three rounds of voting, with consensus defined as over 80% agreement. Participants included members of societal robotics subcommittees and experienced robotic surgical mentors from 13 countries. The consensus statements were divided into five categories: pre-operative considerations, port placement, driving in and docking, instruments and changes, and undocking and driving out.
results57 invitations, alongside a social media advertisement, resulted in 63 responses in round one. Rounds two and three had 54 and 52 responses, respectively (85.7% and 96.3% inter-round response rates). Respondents were from 13 countries, with 73% consultants/attendings, 19% surgical care practitioners/first assistants, and 8% fellows. 73% operate in multiple anatomical regions, primarily pelvic, lower, and upper abdominal. Most respondents had significant robotic experience, with 61.9% involved in over 500 cases. The importance of pre-operative considerations included the necessity of naming components, understanding vision cart functions, and emergency undocking procedures. Standardised port placement and docking techniques were established to ensure optimal access and safety. The use of reverse communication to ensure safety with instrument insertion and changes was emphasised with high levels of consensus.
conclusionThe consensus identified best practices in hardware knowledge, emergency undocking, port placement, docking, instrument handling, and undocking procedures. This aims to standardise training protocols and has the potential to form part of assessment and accreditation. Further research is required to validate these findings.
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.