ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic simulation training for laparoscopic skill acquisition in novices: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04989881 (Comparison of Dry-lab Laparoscopic Training and Robotic Virtual Simulator Training to Develop Basic Laparoscopic Skills), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Dry-lab Laparoscopic Training and Robotic Virtual Simulator Training to Develop Basic Laparoscopic Skills: A Randomized Clinical Trial
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing technical demands and reduced operative exposure have reinforced the importance of simulation-based training in minimally invasive surgery. Robotic simulation offers an additional training modality. Yet, evidence for transfer of skills from robotic training to laparoscopic performance remains inconsistent.
methodsWe performed a single-center, randomized controlled trial including medical students enrolled at University of Geneva with no prior laparoscopic experience. Participants were randomized to either dry-lab laparoscopic training (LT) or robotic training (RT) on the da Vinci Skills Simulator. Performance was evaluated on a dry-lab laparoscopic simulator using two tasks, Peg Transfer and Precision Cutting, adapted from the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery program. A total of 98 novices (50 in LT group and 48 in RT group) completed the study protocol.
resultsPeg Transfer composite scores did not differ significantly between groups (LT: median 357 [IQR 232-440]; RT: median 322.5 [IQR 174.2-386]; 95% CI - 5.0 to 117.0; p = 0.074; effect size = 0.18). On the Precision Cutting task, the RT group had a shorter completion time than the LT group (LT: 479 s [IQR 379-644.5]; RT: 294.5 s [IQR 224.5-394.5]; 95% CI 116-241; p < 0.001; effect size = 0.54), with no significant difference in cutting deviation (LT 61.9 ± 28.1 mm; RT: 70.8 ± 30.3 mm; 95% CI - 20.7 to 2.8; p = 0.134; effect size = 0.31). Both groups showed significant within-session learning curves, with reductions in completion time of 43.2% and 36.4% for LT and RT groups, respectively (both p < 0.001). In exploratory analyses, male sex was associated with higher Peg Transfer scores.
conclusionsAmong novice learners, LT and RT demonstrated comparable performance on Peg Transfer composite score, with RT associated with faster task completion on a subsequent laparoscopic Precision Cutting task without a corresponding loss of accuracy. These findings suggest that robotic and laparoscopic simulation may offer similar benefits for laparoscopic skill acquisition, but warrant confirmation. CLINICAL TRIAL: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04989881).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42811179What 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.