ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic Surgical Training in the Northern Deanery: A trainee-led evaluation in line with GIRFT recommendations.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has transformed UK surgical practice, with GIRFT emphasising the need for structured and equitable training. This study explores trainee experiences of robotic surgery training within the first UK deanery to adopt a centralised robotic surgery programme. A mixed-methods cross-sectional survey was distributed to surgical trainees in the Northern Deanery, collecting quantitative data on RAS experience, expectations, and training provision. Qualitative data on perceived benefits and barriers, was analysed thematically. There were 60 survey respondents. Support for formal RAS training was near-universal (97%), and most trainees considered RAS relevant to current training (87%), and important for the future of their specialty (90%). However, 80% perceived access to RAS as inequitable across trusts within the region. Most trainees felt competent to observe robotic cases, complete simulation modules, and bedside assist by ST3–4 level, with many reporting readiness for supervised console operating during mid-stage higher training. Mean exposure included 21 ± 21 observed cases, 10.3 ± 12.8 simulation hours, 25 ± 30 bedside-assisted cases, and 4 ± 9 console cases. Perceived impacts of RAS on training were mixed: 21% reported positive effects, 47% negative effects, and 32% neutral. 77% of trainees agreed that access to robotics would influence where they work as a consultant. Thematically, trainees valued “availability of robotic systems”, “consultant engagement and training culture”, “structured training pathways and curriculum”, and “simulation-based training”. Trainees feel competent for early development in simulation, and bedside skills but there remains limited console access locally. There is trainee consensus to necessitate recognition of RAS training formally in the ISCP curriculum.
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.