SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025
Effectiveness of tele-proctoring in robotic surgery: systematic review of different robotic platforms.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proctoring as advanced surgical learning: the proctor's perspective in robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Adjacent-room dual-console Remote Surgical Training (ReST) with takeover capability on the da Vinci Xi: a porcine-model feasibility study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The evolution of radical prostatectomy: a scoping review on surgical techniques and integration of surgeon-assisting concepts into the surgical workflow.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic Cardiac Surgery: Overview of All Robotic Platforms in Clinical Use.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of teleproctoring in robotic surgery across clinical and lab settings by analyzing proctor and trainee performance, proctoring tools, and surgical outcomes.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted on July 24, 2024, targeting peer-reviewed studies on teleproctoring methods in advanced elective robotic surgeries. Included studies involved verbal remote mentoring, telestration, teleconferencing, and ghost surgery tools focused on surgeons. Exclusions applied to laparoscopic, minor, emergency surgeries, non-surgeon trainees, and setups without direct surgical control. From 2,510 screened articles, 11 met inclusion criteria. Quality assessment used an adapted tool combining STROBE, CONSORT, TIDieR, ACROBAT-NRSI, and QATSDD checklists.
resultsOf the 11 studies, 8 were from high-income countries (6 USA, 2 Japan) and 1 from Brazil. The da Vinci system predominated (8 studies), with others using AESOP, Japanese pneumatically-driven, and custom platforms. Wired internet showed lower latency (1.4 ms) than wireless (7.4 ms), and high bandwidth improved image quality. Communication redundancy via multiple carriers reduced interruptions. Five live surgery studies (7-120 patients) showed no significant differences between teleproctored and on-site mentoring in operative time, narcotic use, hospital stay, or recovery. Complications were infrequent and manageable. In six lab studies, 3D ghost instruments were rated more effective than 2D telestration despite higher latency. Teleproctoring improved intermediate-difficulty training tasks. Certified proctors and standardized protocols remain inconsistently available globally.
conclusionTeleproctoring effectively enhances robotic surgery training and patient outcomes by enabling expert mentorship remotely. Reliable technology and standardized protocols are essential for broader adoption, especially in underserved areas.
trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42024517403.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41264014What 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.