ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Analysis and objective assessment of transoral robotic surgery.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Institutional evolution of a robotic otolaryngology program across consecutive da Vinci Si, Xi, and SP platform transitions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Reconfiguring robotic surgery in head and neck practice: transition from multi-port to single-port with early clinical outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTransoral robotic surgery (TORS) has become a well-established surgical technique for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer, but the significant learning curve and lack of standardized credentialing have resulted in wide variability in surgical outcomes. This study aims to define procedure-specific competence standards for TORS and test whether a hierarchical task analysis (HTA)-derived procedure-based assessment (PBA) distinguishes experience levels. We examined the ability of PBA and Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) scores to discriminate between novice and experienced surgeons and to assess their association with operative efficiency and margin quality.
methodsWe built an HTA by deconstructing the TORS lateral oropharyngectomy into tasks and subtasks. Then, PBA metrics for mucosal incision and deep dissection were developed. Two independent raters scored 40 porcine tongue TORS videos (20 novice, 20 experienced) using PBA and GEARS and recorded global and phase times.
resultsExperienced surgeons scored higher on total PBA (39.98 vs 35.35, p = 0.0055) and GEARS (22.60 vs 19.63, p = 0.0009) and showed less score variability. The largest gaps were lateral tasks: lateral mucosal incision 4.65 vs 3.60 (p = 0.0015) and lateral deep dissection 4.58 vs 3.85 (p = 0.0115). Margin scores were higher in experienced surgeons (4.38 vs 3.80, p = 0.0149). Procedures were faster overall (298.47 s vs 466.43 s, p = 0.0003) with shorter mucosal incision and deep dissection times.
conclusionsAn HTA-derived PBA reliably differentiates TORS expertise, aligns with speed and margin quality, and identifies lateral tasks as high-yield training targets. These metrics support standardized training, assessment, and integration into VR simulation for competency-based credentialing.
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.