Development and validation of the metric-based assessment of a robotic vessel dissection, vessel loop positioning, clip applying and bipolar coagulation task on an avian model

Development and evaluation of a societal core robotic surgery accreditation curriculum for the UK

Standardised proficiency-based progression is the cornerstone of safe robotic skills acquisition, however, is currently lacking within surgical training curricula. Expert consensuses have defined a modular pathway to accredit surgeons. This study aimed to address the lack of a formal, pre-clinical core robotic skills, proficiency-based accreditation curriculum in the UK. Novice robotic participants underwent a four-day pre-clinical core robotic skills curriculum incorporating multimodal assessment. Modifiable-Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (M-GEARS), VR-automated performance metrics (APMs) and Objective Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) error methodology assessed performance at the beginning and end of training. Messick's validity concept and a curriculum evaluation model were utilised. Feedback was collated. Proficiency-based progression, benchmarking, tool validity and reliability was assessed through comparative and correlational statistical methods. Forty-seven participants were recruited. Objective assessment of VR and dry models across M-GEARS, APMs and OCHRA demonstrated significant improvements in technical skill (p < 0.001). Concurrent validity between assessment tools demonstrated strong correlation in dry and VR tasks (r = 0.64-0.92, p < 0.001). OCHRA Inter-rater reliability was excellent (r = 0.93, p < 0.001 and 81% matched error events). A benchmark was established with M-GEARS and for the curriculum at 80%. Thirty (63.82%) participants passed. Feedback was 5/5 stars on average, with 100% recommendation. Curriculum evaluation fulfilled all five domains of Messick's validity. Core robotic surgical skills training can be objectively evaluated and benchmarked to provide accreditation in basic robotic skills. A strategy is necessary to enrol standardised curricula into national surgical training at an early stage to ensure patient safety.

ESRU-ESU-YAU_UROTECH Survey on Urology Residents Surgical Training: Are We Ready for Simulation and a Standardized Program?

Background

Currently, the landscape of surgical training is undergoing rapid evolution, marked by the initial implementation of standardized surgical training programs, which are further facilitated by the emergence of new technologies. However, this proliferation is uneven across various countries and hospitals.

Objective

To offer a comprehensive overview of the existing surgical training programs throughout Europe, with a specific focus on the accessibility of simulation resources and standardized surgical programs.

Design setting and participants

A dedicated survey was designed and spread in May 2022 via the European Association of Urology (EAU) mail list, to Young Urologist Office (YUO), Junior membership, European Urology Residents Education Program participants between 2014 and 2022, and other urologists under 40 yr, and via the EAU Newsletter.

Intervention

A 64-item, online-based survey in accordance with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) using the platform of Survey Monkey (Portland, OR, USA) was realized.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The study involved an assessment of the demographic characteristics. Additionally, it explored the type of center, availability of various surgical approaches, presence of training infrastructure, participation in courses, organization of training, and participants' satisfaction with the training program. The level of satisfaction was evaluated using a Likert-5 scale. The subsequent sections delved into surgical training within the realms of open, laparoscopic, robotic, and endoscopic surgery, each explored separately. Finally, the investigation encompassed the presence of a structured training course and the availability of a duly validated final evaluation process.

Results and limitations

There were 375 responders with a completion rate of 82%. Among them, 75% were identified as male, 50.6% were young urologists, 31.7% were senior residents, and 17.6% were junior residents. A significant majority of participants (69.6%) were affiliated with academic centers. Regarding the presence of dry lab training facilities, only 50.3% of respondents indicated its availability. Among these centers, 46.7% were primarily focused on laparoscopy training. The availability of virtual and wet lab training centers was even more limited, with rates of 31.5% and 16.2%, respectively. Direct patient involvement was reported in 80.5% of cases for open surgery, 58.8% for laparoscopy, 25.0% for robotics, and 78.6% for endourology. It is worth noting that in <25% of instances, training followed a well-defined standardized program comprising both preclinical and clinical modular phases. Finally, the analysis of participant feedback showed that 49.7% of respondents expressed a satisfaction rating of either 4 or 5 points with respect to the training program. The limitations of our study include the low response rate, predominance of participants from academic centers, and absence of responses from individuals not affiliated with the EAU network.

Conclusions

The current distribution of surgical training centers falls short of ensuring widespread access to standardized training programs. Although dry lab facilities are relatively well spread, the availability of wet lab resources remains restricted. Additionally, it appears that many trainees' initial exposure to surgery occurs directly with patients. There is a pressing need for continued endeavors to establish uniform training routes and assessment techniques across various surgical methodologies.

Patient summary

Nowadays, the surgical training landscape is heterogeneous across different countries. The implementation of a standardized training methodology to enhance the overall quality of surgical training and thereby improving patient outcomes is needed.

Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a need to standardize training in robotic surgery, including objective assessment for accreditation. This systematic review aimed to identify objective tools for technical skills assessment, providing evaluation statuses to guide research and inform implementation into training curricula.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Ovid Embase/Medline, PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criterion: robotic surgery technical skills tools. Exclusion criteria: non-technical, laparoscopy or open skills only. Manual tools and automated performance metrics (APMs) were analysed using Messick's concept of validity and the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence and Recommendation (LoR). A bespoke tool analysed artificial intelligence (AI) studies. The Modified Downs-Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-seven studies were analysed, identifying: 8 global rating scales, 26 procedure-/task-specific tools, 3 main error-based methods, 10 simulators, 28 studies analysing APMs and 53 AI studies. Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills and the da Vinci Skills Simulator were the most evaluated tools at LoR 1 (OCEBM). Three procedure-specific tools, 3 error-based methods and 1 non-simulator APMs reached LoR 2. AI models estimated outcomes (skill or clinical), demonstrating superior accuracy rates in the laboratory with 60 per cent of methods reporting accuracies over 90 per cent, compared to real surgery ranging from 67 to 100 per cent.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual and automated assessment tools for robotic surgery are not well validated and require further evaluation before use in accreditation processes.PROSPERO: registration ID CRD42022304901.

3D printed patient-specific prostate cancer models to guide nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review

Precise knowledge of each patient's index cancer and surrounding anatomy is required for nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (NS-RARP). Complementary to this, 3D printing has proven its utility in improving the visualisation of complex anatomy. This is the first systematic review to critically assess the potential of 3D printed patient-specific prostate cancer models in improving visualisation and the practice of NS-RARP. A literature search of PubMed and OVID Medline databases was performed using the terms "3D Printing", "Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy" and related index terms as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eight articles were included; six were identified via database searches, to which a further two articles were located via a snowballing approach. Eight papers were identified for review. There were five prospective single centre studies, one case series, one technical report and one letter to the editor. Of these articles, five publications (62.5%) reported on the utility of 3D printed models for NS-RARP planning. Two publications (25%) utilised 3D printed prostate models for simulation and training, and two publications (25%) used the models for patient engagement. Despite the nascency of the field, 3D printed models are emerging in the uro-oncological literature as a useful tool in visualising complex anatomy. This has proven useful in NS-RARP for preoperative planning, simulation and patient engagement. However, best practice guidelines, the future regulatory landscape, and health economic considerations need to be addressed before this synergy of new technologies is ready for the mainstream.