ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
The need for adaptive laparoscopic training, depending on conventional and robotic procedures. Evidence from an experimental profiling study.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rise in robotic surgical procedures underscores the need for effective training in minimally invasive surgery, particularly the interactions between robotic and conventional techniques. Aim of this experimental study was to examine whether conventional and robotic laparoscopy require different neuropsychological skills and to evaluate the role of individual experience and expertise. STUDY
designA single center, randomized crossover training trial was conducted at a university hospital surgical training center. Participants were 86 postgraduates (residents and experts) from general surgery, urology and gynecology who were enrolled in surgical training courses, and 237 fifth-year medical students participated within their gynecology curriculum. Participants underwent neuropsychological testing, followed by surgical training in both conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopy, performing identical tasks six times in a randomized crossover setting.
resultsFor conventional laparoscopy, 57 participants were "slow learners," while 212 were "fast learners". For robotic laparoscopy, 193 participants were "slow learners" and 76 "fast learners". Among students, conventional training success was significantly associated with neuropsychological factors such as personality, motivation, psychomotor skills, while robotic training was predominantly associated with personality factors. Among physicians, both personality and psychomotor skills were critical for learning surgical skills in both techniques.
conclusionSurgical training outcomes differ significantly between conventional and robotic laparoscopy. Conventional laparoscopy supports faster learning, with a good start performance strongly influencing training success, whereas good robotic start performance correlated with slower learning. Different individual factors influenced effective training of surgical skills according to the surgical method and prior experience and skills level, suggesting tailored training curricula.
trial registrationThe study is registered in The UK´s Clinical Study Registry (ISRCTN79269632).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42803789What 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.