ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
National survey of GERGIN-affiliated Spanish gynecologic robotic surgeons of the perceived clinical, educational and professional impact of robotic surgery.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic surgery is reshaping minimally invasive gynecology; however, systematic characterisation of how GERGIN-affiliated Spanish gynecologic robotic surgeons perceive its clinical, educational, and professional implications has been lacking. We aimed to describe these perceptions and identify training gaps and professional attitudes in this national surgical community. A cross-sectional anonymous online survey was distributed in November 2025 by GERGIN (Grupo Español de Robótica Ginecológica), a working group of the Spanish Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (SEGO), to all 120 registered members. Two thematic blocks were analysed: (1) professional profile and surgical activity (items 1-10); and (2) clinical, educational, and professional impact (items 11-22), assessed with 7-point Likert scales and categorical responses. Descriptive statistics were applied. The study is reported according to the CHERRIES checklist. Of 120 eligible members, 82 responded (68.3%). The cohort was gender-balanced (50% female), mean age 44.7 ± 7.9 years, 44.4% with more than five years of robotic experience, 42.7% having performed more than 100 cases. Da Vinci Xi was used by 98.8%. Perceived patient recovery benefit was rated positively (mean 5.20/7; 76.8% ≥5). Near-unanimous consensus endorsed clear ergonomic improvement (98.8%). A dichotomy emerged in training: robotic surgery enhanced anatomical education (mean 5.07/7) but reduced residents' intraoperative exposure (mean 2.66/7) and did not accelerate the learning curve (mean 2.44/7). Cost (80.5%) and OR availability (70.7%) were the dominant perceived limitations. GERGIN-affiliated Spanish gynecologic robotic surgeons endorse the perceived clinical and ergonomic benefits of robotic surgery while acknowledging an educational paradox: anatomical teaching improves but operative exposure for trainees is reduced. Structured robotic residency curricula, dual-console availability, and simulation-based competency frameworks are urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42842147What 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.