ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Teaching landscape of robotic anatomic lung resection: an analysis of the da Vinci system dual console use in the US.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to characterize the utilization of the dual console (DC) teaching setup for daVinci robotic-assisted anatomic lung resections on a US national level. Intuitive da Vinci robotic system data for thoracic lobectomy and segmentectomy procedures between 2021 and 2022 were included. DC utilization was categorized as never, low, medium or high for surgeons performing 0, < 50%, 50-90% or > 90% of resections with DC activation, respectively. Surgeons and procedure factors associated with DC use was analyzed using binary logistic regression. During the study period, 38,552 lobectomy and 4,955 segmentectomy procedures were performed by 868 unique surgeons. A total of 555 surgeons (63.9%) performed anatomic lung resections using the DC, whereas 313 surgeons (36.1%) never used the DC. Amongst DC users, 176 (31.7%) surgeons were classified as low, 216 (38.9%) as medium and 163 (29.3%) as high utilizers. DC use varied significantly between surgeons based on experience (p = 0.018), with the greatest proportion of high utilizers being surgeons with less than 5 years of experience on the robot. Overall, the DC was used for 42.9% of anatomic lung resection. DC use was higher for segmentectomy than for lobectomy procedures (54.9% vs. 41.4%; p < 0.001). The median console time was 18 min longer with the DC setup (123.9 vs. 105.1 min, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, stapler use and Academic or VA/DOD hospital setting were associated with the highest rates of dual console activation. The dual console teaching setup is being used by almost two thirds of surgeons in the US. However, the significant variation of dual console activation indicates a wavering level of participation in teaching amongst surgeons. Further research is needed on robotic trainee involvement and pathways to autonomy for the next generation of thoracic surgeons.
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.