ReviewSurgical endoscopy2026
Towards measuring the challenge: a narrative review on existing concepts and parallels for surgical struggle.
Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMoments of intraoperative struggling, termed as surgical struggle, are common yet variably labeled and poorly defined. Existing literature substitutes proxy terms, but no standardized definitions or metrics of struggle exist despite clear implications for patient safety, outcomes, and training.
methodsA narrative review was undertaken to map how "surgical struggle" has been conceptualized and measured in the literature. The literature was screened using concept-adjacent proxies and parallels (e.g., operative difficulty, prolonged operative time, workflow disruptions, hesitancy, intraoperative kinematics, physiologic stress) identified through searches in PubMed and Google Scholar.
resultsExisting measures each capture facets of struggle but not the moment itself. Operative difficulty, technical complexity, and surgical complexity are widely used terms that represent struggle. Prolonged operative time is objective but nonspecific. Robotic kinematic data (eg, idle bursts, path length, jerk, speed peaks) differentiates expertise and correlates with adverse intraoperative events, offering granular, real-time signals. Surgical workflow disruptions increase cognitive load and are associated with moments of struggle, while surgical hesitation represents pauses in operative period potentially highlighting struggling. Physiologic markers of struggling moments (eg, heart rate variability, galvanic skin response) are not routinely captured. Evidence supports a multilevel framework (micro, meso, macro) for surrogate measures of surgical struggle.
conclusionA standardized working definition of surgical struggle will establish the framework for identifying intraoperative struggle. This will enable video annotation and machine-learning pipelines for real-time detection of surgical struggle. A formal consensus process is warranted to establish a terminology, definition, thresholds, and reporting standards and to catalyze clinical adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41792487What 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.