ArticleInnovative surgical sciences2025
IDEAL-compliant implementation of the Dexter
Article in Innovative surgical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic-assisted right colectomy with the DEXTERTechniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Global evolution of robot-assisted cholecystectomy research in the era of artificial intelligence: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy with DEXTERSurgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- SAGES tool for assessing robotic surgery systems (STARSS).Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The integration of advanced technologies is transforming surgical practice, particularly through robotic systems. This study presents the early clinical implementation of the Dexter Methods: Twenty patients underwent elective robotic-assisted cholecystectomy using the Dexter Results: Six surgeons and thirty nurses were trained, with surgeons completing a minimum of 20 h of simulation. Preoperative and operative times were significantly reduced through this process. Comparing the first 10 operations to the second, docking time decreased from 11.4 ± 4.1 min to 7.1 ± 2.1 min (p=0.0144) and operative time improved from 130.5 ± 25.7 min to 99.7 ± 21.8 min (p=0.0134). Mean intraoperative blood loss was minimal, averaging 19.5 ± 31.4 mL, and the average length of hospital stay was 3.1 ± 1.4 days. Postoperative pain levels were low, and patient satisfaction was high, as assessed by telephone survey. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the value of the IDEAL framework in guiding the systematic evaluation and implementation of new surgical technologies such as the Dexter
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.