Ruling the robot: a phase-based analysis of resident autonomy across core robotic general surgery procedures

Abstract Background Robotic 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. Methods A 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. Results 151 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. Conclusion Resident 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.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Surgical Endoscopy
Published
2026-10-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-026-13439-4
Primary Topic
Surgical Simulation and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ruling the robot: a phase-based analysis of resident autonomy across core robotic general surgery procedures

Douglas J. Cassidy, Mary Kate Bryant, Arjun N. Patel, Heather Leigh Evans et al.
Surgical Endoscopy
Surgical Simulation and Training
article

Ruling the robot: a phase-based analysis of resident autonomy across core robotic general surgery procedures

Douglas J. Cassidy, Mary Kate Bryant, Arjun N. Patel, Heather Leigh Evans, Bruce Crookes, Georgia Lydon, William P. Lancaster, Rana C. Pullatt, Thomas Allen, Stephen Fann
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Robotic 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. Methods A 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. Results 151 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. Conclusion Resident 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.

Surgical Endoscopy
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Surgical Simulation and Training
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.