Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 May 24;40(1):127.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-025-04914-w.

Development of an evaluation framework for robotic total mesorectal excision videos: a review and comparison of medical professional and public video resources

Zohaib Arain #  1 , Michael G Fadel #  2 , Aksaan Arif  3 , Henry Douglas Robb  4 , Bibek Das  4 , Liam Poynter  5 , Christos Kontovounisios  6   7   8 , Hutan Ashrafian  4 , Daniel Lawes  5 , Matyas Fehervari  4   9
Affiliations
Review

Development of an evaluation framework for robotic total mesorectal excision videos: a review and comparison of medical professional and public video resources

Zohaib Arain et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. .

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to assess the quality of educational surgical videos for robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), across widely used open-source platforms, using a newly designed quality assessment checklist.

Methods: The checklist was developed by using existing society guidelines, such as the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery, comprising four key sections: (i) usability of the platform, (ii) video component, (iii) intraoperative techniques and (iv) other information (including case presentation and outcomes). Videos were identified using the search terms 'Robotic TME' from surgical education platforms (WebSurg, C-SATS and Touch Surgery) and YouTube, between January 2016 and July 2024. All videos displaying robotic TME were reviewed and scored using the quality assessment tool (/12), and the videos across the platforms were subsequently compared.

Results: A total of 113 videos were scored using the checklist: 63 surgical education platform (10 WebSurg and 53 C-SATS) and 50 YouTube videos. The total median checklist score achieved by WebSurg (9 [IQR 8-9] and YouTube videos (8 [IQR 7-10]) was significantly higher than CSAT-S videos (4 [IQR 4-5]; p < 0.001). The usability of platform scores for YouTube was significantly higher than WebSurg and C-SATS videos (p < 0.001). Scores for video components, intraoperative techniques and other information were higher across WebSurg and YouTube videos when compared to C-SATS (p < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference between WebSurg and YouTube for each domain.

Conclusion: The overall educational quality of online robotic TME videos was found to be generally heterogeneous, with WebSurg and YouTube videos demonstrating higher scores based on the checklist. A new quality assessment tool has been proposed for robotic TME videos, which has the potential to improve the reliability and value of published video research.

Keywords: Educational video; Robotic total mesorectal excision; Surgical video platforms; Video quality assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval: Not applicable. Consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Quality assessment checklist for robotic total mesorectal excision videos. ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system; IMA, inferior mesenteric artery; IMV, inferior mesenteric vein; TME, total mesorectal excision
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A Flowchart showing the selection process for videos from WebSurg, C-SATS and Touch Surgery related to robotic total mesorectal excision. B Flowchart showing the selection process for videos from YouTube related to robotic total mesorectal excision
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A Comparison of the median total score of robotic total mesorectal videos from surgical education platforms and YouTube. B Comparison of the median total score of robotic total mesorectal videos between WebSurg, C-SATS and YouTube. C Comparison of the median video length (minutes) of robotic total mesorectal videos from surgical education platforms and YouTube. D Comparison of the median video length (minutes) of robotic total mesorectal excision videos among WebSurg, C-SATS and YouTube
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
A Comparison of the median usability of platform domain scores of robotic total mesorectal excision videos from surgical educational platforms and YouTube. B Comparison of the median usability of platform domain scores of robotic total mesorectal excision videos between WebSurg, C-SATS and YouTube
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
A Comparison of the median video component domain scores of robotic total mesorectal excision from surgical educational platforms and YouTube. B Comparison of the median video component domains scores of robotic total mesorectal excision between WebSurg, C-SATS and YouTube
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
A Comparison of the median intraoperative technique domain scores of robotic total mesorectal excision from surgical educational platforms and YouTube. B Comparison of the median intraoperative technique domains scores of robotic total mesorectal excision between WebSurg, C-SATS and YouTube
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
A Comparison of the median other information domains scores of robotic total mesorectal excision from surgical educational platforms and YouTube. B Comparison of the median intraoperative technique domain scores of robotic total mesorectal excision between WebSurg, C-SATS and YouTube
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ielpo B, Caruso R, Quijano Y, Duran H, Diaz E, Fabra I et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection: is there any real difference? A comparative single center study. Int J Med Robot 10:300–305. 10.1002/rcs.1583 - PubMed
    1. D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P et al (2013) Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27:1887–1895. 10.1007/s00464-012-2731-4 - PubMed
    1. Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A, Spinoglio G, Zampino MG, Sonzogni A et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 24:2888–2894. 10.1007/s00464-010-1134-7 - PubMed
    1. van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, Verhage RJJ, van der Horst S, Haverkamp L, Siersema PD et al (2015) Oncologic long-term results of robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22(Suppl 3):S1350-1356. 10.1245/s10434-015-4544-x - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gómez Ruiz M, Lainez Escribano M, Cagigas Fernández C, Cristobal Poch L, Santarrufina MS (2020) Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 4:646–651. 10.1002/ags3.12401 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources