ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Development and validation of objective performance metrics for robot-assisted basic surgical skills in a simulated anastomosis task using a single-port robotic system.
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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe chicken anastomosis task is a widely adopted model for training robotic suturing and knot-tying. Aim of this study was to develop and validate objective performance metrics for this task on the Single-Port (SP) robotic platform and to establish a proficiency benchmark for training and assessment.
methodsSeven experts in robotic surgery training and Proficiency Based Progression (PBP) developed the metrics for the SP chicken anastomosis task. The proposed metrics were refined among a panel of n = 14 participants with significant experience in PBP and/or robotics and/or the SP system, through a modified Delphi process. Construct validity was assessed by comparing recorded performances of n = 12 expert ( ≥100 SP RARPs) and n = 12 novice surgeons, blindly scored by two reviewers. Proficiency benchmarks were established based on performance distribution.
resultsDelphi consensus achieved 100% agreement on the proposed performance metrics (n = 5 steps, n = 20 errors, n = 1 failure to progress and n = 4 critical errors [CE]). Novices were twice more likely to commit a CE (n = 6 vs. n = 3). Among participants who completed the task without CEs, novices required significantly longer completion times (mean 25.3 min, 95%CI 18.0-32.7 vs. 11.2 min, 95%CI 8.5-13.9; p = 0.003) and committed a significantly higher mean number of errors (12.3, 95%CI 8.6-16.1 vs. 8.1, 95%CI 6.6-9.6, p = 0.033). Calculated Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR: agreements/agreements+disagreements) was 0.96. Proficiency benchmarks were defined as: absence of CEs and < 10 errors.
conclusionsThe proposed metrics showed robust construct validity and reliability, and support PBP training and assessment for the SP platform. The proposed benchmark, as well as its clinical impact, requires confirmation and prospective evaluation.
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.