Skip to main content
. 2025 Aug 11;19(1):476. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02427-w

Table 1.

General characteristics of included studies (N=32)

Study Country Year(s) Study design Study arms Number of robotic surgeons Surgeons’ level of experience with robotic surgery Procedures/ tasks performed Robotic technology used Learning curve overcome Number of cases to overcome learning curve
Argenziano 2006 USA 2006 Retrospective Single NR 5 predefined stages of TECAB training requirements Totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) da Vinci No NR
Barac 2021 USA 2021 Retrospective Single 6 Academic medical center with vast experience in endoscopic, non-robotic, and robotic mitral repairs Mitral valve repair (MVR) da Vinci No 16
Bonaros 2006 Austria 2006 Prospective Single NR NR Atrial septal defect (ASD) repair da Vinci No NR
Bonatti 2009 Austria 2009 Prospective Single 1 NR TECAB da Vinci Yes >100
Bonatti 2004 Austria 2004 Prospective Single NR NR TECAB da Vinci No NR
Bonatti 2008 Austria 2008 Prospective Single NR NR TECAB da Vinci NR 25
Charland 2011 USA 2011 Retrospective Single NR NR MVR da Vinci NR NR
Cheng 2014 China 2014 Prospective Single 1 Prior experience with successfully performing >650 cases of robotic cardiac surgery at a single center TECAB da Vinci No NR
ChitwoodJr 2005 USA 2005 Retrospective Single 1 NR MVR da Vinci No NR
ChitwoodJr 2001 USA 2001 Prospective Single NR NR MVR da Vinci No NR
Gao 2012 China 2012 Prospective Single NR NR MVR da Vinci No NR
Goodman 2017 USA 2017 Prospective Single 2 Surgeon A performed approx. 25 robotically assisted cases CABG. Surgeon B had no previous robotic experience MVR NR No NR
Gullu 2021 Turkey 2021 Retrospective Single NR NR MVR da Vinci Yes 30
Hemli 2013 USA 2013 Prospective Single NR NR Minimally invasive CABG da Vinci Yes 20
Isgro 2003 Germany 2003 Prospective Single NR NR Internal mammary artery takedown Zeus No NR
Jones 2005 USA 2005 Retrospective Single 1 Surgeon had performed well over 40 robotically-assisted internal thoracic artery harvests MVR da Vinci No NR
Kakuta 2020 Japan 2020 Retrospective Single 3 NR MVR da Vinci Yes 10
Kesavuori 2018 Finland 2018 Retrospective Comparative (control) NR NR MVR da Vinci Yes 30
Klepper 2022 Belgium 2022 Retrospective Single 4 NR MVR da Vinci NR NR
Masroor 2021 USA 2021 Prospective Single 114 No prior experience Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) NR Yes 8–10
Novick 2003 Canada 2003 Prospective Single NR NR CABG Zeus No 18–20
Oehlinger 2007 Austria 2001- 2005 Prospective Single NR NR CABG da Vinci Yes 50
Patrick 2021 USA 2014- 2019 Prospective Single 114 No prior experience CABG NR Yes 10
Ramzy 2014 USA 2005- 2012 Retrospective Single 2 No prior experience MVR da Vinci Yes 120
Sagbas 2006 Turkey 2006 Prospective Single NR NR CABG, ASD closure da Vinci Yes 59
Schachner 2011 Austria 2001- 2009 Retrospective Single 3 No prior experience TECAB da Vinci Yes 20
Schachner 2009 Austria 2001- 2008 Retrospective Single 2 Completed TECAB training before robotic surgeries TECAB, MIDCAB, CABG da Vinci No NR
Seo 2019 USA 2008- 2016 Prospective Comparative (conventional surgery) 1 Prior experience with 100 robotically-assisted cases MVR da Vinci Yes 100
VandenEynde 2021 Belgium, USA 2015- 2020 Retrospective Single 3 NR Single internal mammary artery bypass grafting da Vinci Yes 100
Xiao 2014 China 2007- 2013 Prospective Single 1 No prior experience ASD repair da Vinci Yes 60–120
Yaffee 2014 USA, Czech Republic NR Prospective Single 2 Completed clinical scenarios, simulations, wet laboratories, and ‘‘expert’’ observation for 3 months MVR da Vinci Yes NR
Jonsson 2023 USA 2009- 2020 Prospective Single 1 Completed preliminary training. CABG da Vinci Yes 250-500

NR not recorded. Assumption that a plateau of the learning curve means the curve has been overcome, as no further improvement is being made