ArticleJTCVS open2025
A novel robotic-assisted lung lobectomy simulation model.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Although most thoracic surgery programs seek robotic-competent partners, more than one half of graduating residents report needing more training. We aimed to develop a reproducible, high-fidelity model that serves as an effective training tool for surgeons at all levels. Methods: Porcine heart-lung blocks were prepped for a left upper lobectomy and cannulated to distend the vasculature using an artificial blood substitute capable of simulating bleeding. A linear actuator was positioned beneath a platform to simulate a heartbeat, and a da Vinci Xi robotic system (Intuitive Surgical) was docked above it. Participants performed 3 key steps of a left upper lobectomy, then evaluated fidelity of model features and training value using the Likert scale. Pre- and postsimulation confidence were reported (institutional review board approval no. 76506). Results: Among 20 participants, 15 were trainees (75%) and 5 were faculty (25%). Trainees reported a median of 26 bedside (interquartile range, 15-48) and 5 console cases (interquartile range, 3-30). Faculty experience ranged from <5 to >20 years. The model was rated highly for fidelity, with 100% (n = 9) of features receiving a Likert score ≥4 from faculty, with stapling rated highest (5.0 ± 0.0). Trainees rated 89% of features ≥4, with stapling (4.7 ± 0.4) and lung tissue handling (4.7 ± 0.5) rated highest. Both groups rated the simulation as highly valuable, with trainee confidence significantly improving postsimulation (2.5-3.9, Conclusions: The model was rated highly for fidelity and value by both trainees and faculty, and significantly improved trainee confidence. This model offers an effective and reproducible training tool for individual program implementation.
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.