Education and training in pediatric robotic surgery: lessons learned from an inaugural multinational workshop

Implementation of a standardized robotic assistant surgical training curriculum

Since 2000, robotic-assisted surgery has rapidly expanded into almost every surgical sub-specialty. Despite the popularity of robotic surgery across the United States, a national consensus for standardized training and education of robotic surgeons or surgical teams remains absent. In this quality improvement initiative, a novel, stepwise iterative Robotic Assistant Surgical Training (RAST) curriculum was developed to broaden and standardize robotic bedside assistant training. Thirteen voluntary participants, capable of fulfilling the bedside assistant role, were evaluated to determine if RAST enhanced the learner's self-perceived level of confidence and comfort in their role as bedside assistant. A pre- and post-RAST training survey and a between-stages repeated-measures survey were conducted. All learner participants reported statistically significant increases in confidence and comfort after RAST training, (p =  < 0.001), and between each stage, F (2, 24 = 60.47, p < .001; [Formula: see text] = 0.834). Participant feedback regarding curriculum improvement was obtained, suggesting the desire for more training and practice, in smaller groups of 2-3 participants. One hundred percent of participants felt RAST was beneficial and that it should be implemented as standardized training during onboarding for all robotic bedside assistants. Thus, a standardized, stepwise iterative robotic bedside assistant curriculum increases learner preparedness, comfort, and confidence, safely away from the patient bedside.

Cost, training and simulation models for robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric urology

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic procedures in pediatric urology have been shown to be safe and effective over the last number of years. Coupled with this is the technological trend to provide minimally invasive options for even the most complex pediatric patients. Whilst robotic platforms continue to try to demonstrate superior patient outcomes in adults with mixed results, the utilization of robotic platforms for pediatric urology is increasing.

METHODS

A review of the current literature was undertaken to assess the evidence for training models and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted pediatric urology.

CONCLUSIONS

A growing body of evidence in this field has demonstrated that robotic platforms are safe and effective in children and can provide additional reconstructive benefits due to motion scaling, magnification, stereoscopic views, instrument dexterity and tremor reduction. The main drawbacks remain the financial implications associated with this platform through purchase, maintenance, and disposable costs. This review addresses some of the addresses issues pertaining to cost, training and simulation for robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric urology.

Milestone assessment of minimally invasive surgery in Pediatric Urology fellowship programs

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery has become an important aspect of Pediatric Urology fellowship training. In 2014, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education published the Pediatric Urology Milestone Project as a metric of fellow proficiency in multiple facets of training, including laparoscopic/robotic procedures.

OBJECTIVE

The present study assessed trends in minimally invasive surgery training and utilization of the Milestones among recent Pediatric Urology fellows.

STUDY DESIGN

Using an electronic survey instrument, Pediatric Urology fellowship program directors and fellows who completed their clinical year in 2015 were surveyed. Participants were queried regarding familiarity with the Milestone Project, utilization of the Milestones, robotic/laparoscopic case volume and training experience, and perceived competency with robotic/laparoscopic surgery at the start and end of the fellowship clinical year according to Milestone criteria. Responses were accepted between August and November 2015.

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed via e-mail to 35 fellows and 30 program directors. Sixteen fellows (46%) and 14 (47%) program directors responded. All fellows reported some robotic experience prior to fellowship, and 69% performed >50 robotic/laparoscopic surgeries during residency. Fellow robotic/laparoscopic case volume varied: three had 1-10 cases (19%), four had 11-20 cases (25%), and nine had >20 cases (56%). Supplementary or robotic training modalities included simulation (9), animal models (6), surgical videos (7), and courses (2). Comparison of beginning and end of fellowship robotic/laparoscopic Milestone assessment (Summary Fig.) revealed scores of <3 in (10) 62% of fellow self-assessments and 10 (75%) of program director assessments. End of training Milestone scores >4 were seen in 12 (75%) of fellow self-assessment and eight (57%) of program director assessments.

DISCUSSION

An improvement in robotic/laparoscopic Milestone scores by both fellow self-assessment and program director assessment was observed during the course of training; however, 43% of program directors rated their fellow below the graduation target of a Milestone score of 4.

CONCLUSION

The best ways to teach minimally invasive surgery in fellowship training must be critically considered.