ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Development of a platform-specific objective assessment tool for the accreditation of robotic setup and docking.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary validity evidence for a platform-specific assessment tool for robotic setup and docking.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery in medical tourism: a retrospective descriptive study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
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
backgroundTraining in robotic surgery entails a stepwise progression, starting with technology training. This aspect, which includes setup and docking, is an intricate process, which can be performed by the wider surgical team, including trainees and surgical care practitioners. Despite this, no uniform accreditation framework exists for assessing competence in robotic system setup, with our aim to establish a robust mechanism for this.
methodsAn international Delphi consensus was conducted to develop a stepwise accreditation protocol for robotic surgical setup. A granular checklist was developed by a steering committee, divided into five key phases of setup (system knowledge, port placement, docking, instrument exchange, and undocking) on the da Vinci Xi platform. Opinions on methods of accreditation, competency cut-offs, and assessors were also surveyed.
results54 experts from 13 countries participated (73% consultant surgeons, 19% surgical care practitioners, 8% fellows). The majority had extensive robotic experience (61.9% involved in > 500 cases). Key findings included knowledge of port placement, the need for reverse communication with instrument changes, and standardised emergency undocking workflows. 85% of respondents supported certification for bedside assistants, preferably assessed by experienced robotic surgeons or assistants (82%). Based upon the protocol, competency was deemed to be demonstrated by a score of 80% or 90% by 81% of respondents. Statements were formulated into a freely usable online form.
conclusionThis Delphi consensus formulated a standardised accreditation curriculum for robotic system setup. The protocol provides a tool which can guide training and assessment of competency in robotic docking and setup, addressing a gap in robotic surgery training. Adoption of this framework could benefit training for surgical teams and improve safety. Future validation will be necessary to correlate use with improved performance.
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.