ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Team members' reflections in debriefings after simulated robot-assisted surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobot-assisted surgery (RAS) challenges teamwork due to the physical separation of the console surgeon from the rest of the team. In acute situations, such as massive bleeding requiring emergency undocking and conversion to open surgery, effective coordination becomes critical. Existing research on teamwork during acute RAS is limited, and so is research on team reflections about performance, which is essential for improving it. This study aimed to explore how RAS teams reflect on coordination in debriefings following simulated scenarios of massive bleeding.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative, explorative study using thematic analysis of six debriefings held after simulation-based RAS scenarios involving massive bleeding. Debriefings were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed.
resultsThree main themes were identified: (1) Roles and responsibilities-highlighting the mediating role of the assistant surgeon, perceptions of leadership, and the importance of trust and familiarity; (2) Management of tasks-describing busyness, anticipation, tone during crisis, and hesitation to act; and (3) Management of information-including sub-teams in the team and the need for feedback and information.
conclusionTeam reflections emphasise role clarity, leadership, anticipating, communication, and coordination in acute RAS situations. These insights are useful for planning simulation-based training that targets these aspects during emergencies in RAS.
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.