ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Ruling the robot: a phase-based analysis of resident autonomy across core robotic general surgery procedures.
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
backgroundRobotic surgery has become foundational in general surgery training, yet limited data exist on resident participation in core robotic procedures. This study assessed resident involvement in robotic cholecystectomies and inguinal hernia repairs (IHR) across operative phases and postgraduate year to characterize how participation evolves throughout training.
methodsA retrospective review of robotic cholecystectomies and unilateral IHR performed over a single academic year at one tertiary academic institution was conducted using My Intuitive App case logs. Cholecystectomies were divided into three phases (dissection, clipping, removal) and IHR into two phases (dissection, reconstruction). Resident participation was quantified for each phase and the overall case. Differences by postgraduate year were assessed using one-way ANOVA, junior (PGY2/3) versus senior (PGY4/5) comparisons using two-sample t-tests, and inter-phase participation using repeated measures ANOVA.
results151 robotic cholecystectomies and 101 robotic unilateral IHR performed by seven surgeons met inclusion criteria. Resident participation in cholecystectomy measured 50.7% (dissection), 90.5% (clipping), 89.4% (removal), and 72.1% (overall) compared to attending surgeons. For IHR, participation measured 44.8% (dissection), 72.5% (reconstruction), and 57.4% (overall). Across postgraduate years, significant differences in participation were identified in the cholecystectomy dissection (p < 0.001), clipping (p = 0.001), and overall case (p < 0.001), but not the removal phase (p = 0.077). For IHR, significant differences were identified across all phases (p < 0.001). Senior residents participated significantly more than junior residents across all phases for both procedures. In both case types, resident participation in the dissection phase significantly lagged behind all other phases regardless of postgraduate year.
conclusionResident participation in robotic cholecystectomy and IHR varies significantly by operative phase and training level. Dissection consistently represents the phase of lowest resident involvement, while senior residents demonstrate greater autonomy across all phases. These findings underscore the importance of phase-level operative data in understanding resident progression and informing competency-based surgical training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834184What 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.