ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Is proctoring in robotic surgery truly helpful? Evaluating general surgeons' perspectives.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proctoring is a well-established teaching method in minimally invasive surgery, shown to enhance surgical safety and reduce operative time while facilitating faster skill acquisition. With the growing adoption of robotic platforms across multiple specialties, and the increasing interest among surgeons in integrating robotics into their practice, proctoring has re-emerged as an important training technique. While its benefits in laparoscopy are well documented, evidence regarding its role in robotic surgery-particularly from surgeons' perspectives-remains limited. We conducted an online survey among general surgeons who had received proctoring sessions during their surgical careers. The aim was to assess their perceptions of proctoring in robotic surgery, focusing on its impact on their learning process, operative times, and integration into daily practice. Respondents were also invited to provide qualitative feedback on specific benefits of proctoring and areas for improvement. Of the 97 proctored surgeons invited to participate, 32 (33%) completed the survey. The majority were male, with a median of 15 years of professional experience. Most surgeons reported receiving proctoring for 2-4 cases, with credentialing cited as the most common reason. A statistically significant association was observed between the number of proctored cases and the perceived reduction in the learning curve (p = 0.0019). Surgeons also reported greater confidence in managing complex cases after proctoring (p = 0.0051) and increased adoption of robotics in their daily practice (p = 0.015). Proctoring appears to be a valuable educational tool for general surgeons incorporating robotic surgery. It helps shorten the learning curve, builds confidence in managing complex cases, and supports the integration of robotics into routine practice. In addition, proctoring connects trainees with experienced surgeons, enabling personalized guidance and meaningful knowledge exchange. Constructive feedback between proctor and trainee is essential to maximize the effectiveness of this training approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41388209What 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.