ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Resident robotic training at a single academic institution: a comparison of general surgery, gynecology, and urology.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to analyze the differences in robotic training among three surgical residencies: general surgery (GS), gynecology (G), and urology (U) at a single academic institution.
methodsCurrent and graduated residents from GS, G, and U from 2018 to 2023 were surveyed regarding their perceptions of robotic training within each of their respective programs. Additionally, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) operative case logs from 2022 to 2024 were analyzed.
resultsThirty current residents (19 GS (response rate (RR) = 33.3%), 8 G (RR = 27.6%), 3 U (RR = 19.8%)) and 62 graduated residents (25 GS (RR = 78.6%), 23 G (RR = 46.4%), 14 U (RR = 72.5%)) responded to the survey. There was a significant difference in satisfaction (89.5% GS, 37.5% G, 67% U, p = 0.022 and confidence (27.8% GS, 75.0% G, 0% U, p = 0.013) in robotic training among current residents. There was no difference in satisfaction or confidence in robotic training among graduated residents. (p = 0.129 and p = 0.425, respectively). There was a significant difference in robotic bedside cases per resident among specialties (GS 2.2 cases, G 3.1 cases, U 76.7 cases per resident, p < 0.0001) as well as console cases per resident (GS 30.2 cases, G 41.7, U 195.4 cases per resident, p = 0.024).
conclusionsAfter the completion of residency, surgeons in all three specialties value their robotic training and felt adequately prepared for robotic surgery in their respective fields. Surgical residency programs must continue to focus on case exposure and the development of robust curricula in robotic surgery to facilitate residents' success during and after training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42509498What 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.