ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparative effectiveness of two simulation-based mastery learning robotic curricula in surgical education: a six-year experience.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery demands specialized training to ensure proficiency and patient safety. Deliberate practice using Virtual Reality (VR) robotic simulation platforms provides a safe method for skill acquisition. The first part of our Initial curriculum (IC) consisted of 33 VR drills on the SimNow Simulator, which was refined in 2021 to 19 VR drills using a Simulation-Based Mastery Learning (SBML) approach. This study evaluates the feasibility and effectiveness of our refined curriculum (RC).
methodsA total of 87 general surgery residents were included. IC was completed by 41 residents, while 46 residents completed the RC. Metrics such as console time, pre- and post-test VR drill scores, and inanimate drill performance were assessed. Statistical analyses included independent or paired t-tests and Mann-Whitney U, or Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests for non-parametric data.
resultsIn the IC, 83% of participants achieved mastery versus 100% in the RC. Mean console training time was significantly reduced from 7 h 6 m (95% CI: 6.20-7.92) in the IC to 5 h 42 m (95% CI: 4.74-6.10) in the RC (p = 0.005), demonstrating enhanced efficiency. For VR drills, the IC median score improved from 62 (126-28) to 353 (366-317) (p < 0.001), with a median time reduction of 847 s (1169-565) (p < 0.001). In the RC, the median test score improved from 65.5 (138.75-37.75) to 344.5 (365.5-291.25) (p < 0.001), with a median time reduction of 999 s (1449.5-548.25) (p < 0.001). Inanimate drill times also improved: the IC median time decreased from 928.5 s (1066-853.5) to 741.5 s (859-613.5) (p < 0.001), while the RC median time decreased from 909.5 s (1037.7-744.7) to 464.5 s (518-413.7) (p < 0.001).
conclusionReducing VR drills from 33 to 19 content-aligned drills with new proficiency benchmarks maintained effectiveness while significantly decreasing VR console training time. These findings support the feasibility of implementing this streamlined robotic training curriculum in general surgery residency programs without compromising skill acquisition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41184674What 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.