Proficiency-based progression training for robotic surgery skills training: a randomized clinical trial

Assessment of the evolution of psychomotor skills in the robotic surgery simulation process

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding field, given the wide variety of new robotic platforms emerging. Looking at the training of surgeons in robotic surgery is of extreme necessity and urgency, considering the ongoing technological advancements. In this research, the performance during the virtual reality simulation phase of training for robotic surgery was analyzed. It was observed that, in addition to the lack of consensus among societies regarding the required simulation hours, there is no guidance on the best curriculum to be adopted. From the data in this study, it can be inferred that the more advanced skills have fewer proficient individuals, meaning that fewer surgeons in training have reached proficiency in all skill exercises. Even with differences in the number of exercises performed proficiently between groups that underwent varying amounts of simulation time, there is no statistically significant difference in the proportion between them.

Current Standards for Training in Robot-assisted Surgery and Endourology: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Different training programs have been developed to improve trainee outcomes in urology. However, evidence on the optimal training methodology is sparse. Our aim was to provide a comprehensive description of the training programs available for urological robotic surgery and endourology, assess their validity, and highlight the fundamental elements of future training pathways.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The validity of each training model was assessed. The methodological quality of studies on metrics and curricula was graded using the MERSQI scale. The level of evidence (LoE) and level of recommendation for surgical curricula were awarded using the educational Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 75 studies were identified. Many simulators have been developed to aid trainees in mastering skills required for both robotic and endourology procedures, but only four demonstrated predictive validity. For assessment of trainee proficiency, we identified 18 in robotics training and six in endourology training; however, the majority are Likert-type scales. Although proficiency-based progression (PBP) curricula demonstrated superior outcomes to traditional training in preclinical settings, only four of six (67%) in robotics and three of nine (33%) in endourology are PBP-based. Among these, the Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery and the SIMULATE curricula have the highest LoE (level 1b). The lack of a quantitative synthesis is the main limitation of our study.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Training curricula that integrate simulators and PBP methodology have been introduced to standardize trainee outcomes in robotics and endourology. However, evidence regarding their educational impact remains restricted to preclinical studies. Efforts should be made to expand these training programs to different surgical procedures and assess their clinical impact.

Robotic colorectal surgery training: Portsmouth perspective

This study aims to discuss the principles and pillars of robotic colorectal surgery training and share the training pathway at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust. A narrative review is presented to discuss all the relevant and critical steps in robotic surgical training. Robotic training requires a stepwise approach, including theoretical knowledge, case observation, simulation, dry lab, wet lab, tutored programs, proctoring (in person or telementoring), procedure-specific training, and follow-up. Portsmouth Colorectal has an established robotic training model with a safe stepwise approach that has been demonstrated through perioperative and oncological results. Robotic surgery training should enable a trainee to use the robotic platform safely and effectively, minimize errors, and enhance performance with improved outcomes. Portsmouth Colorectal has provided such a stepwise training program since 2015 and continues to promote and augment safe robotic training in its field. Safe and efficient training programs are essential to upholding the optimal standard of care.

The emerging role of robotics in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The role of robotics has grown exponentially. There is an active interest amongst practitioners in the transferability of the potential benefits into plastic and reconstructive surgery; however, many plastic surgeons report lack of widespread implementation, training, or clinical exposure. We report the current evidence base, and surgical opportunities, alongside key barriers, and limitations to overcome, to develop the use of robotics within the field. This systematic review of PubMed, Medline, and Embase has been conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024524237). Preclinical, educational, and clinical articles were included, within the scope of plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2, 181, articles were screened; 176 articles met the inclusion criteria across lymph node dissection, flap and microsurgery, vaginoplasty, craniofacial reconstruction, abdominal wall reconstruction and transoral robotic surgery (TOR). A number of benefits have been reported including technical advantages such as better visualisation, improved precision and accuracy, and tremor reduction. Patient benefits include lower rate of complications and quicker recovery; however, there is a longer operative duration in some categories. Cost presents a significant barrier to implementation. Robotic surgery presents an exciting opportunity to improve patient outcomes and surgical ease of use, with feasibility for many subspecialities demonstrated in this review. However, further higher quality comparative research with careful case selection, which is adequately powered, as well as the inclusion of cost-analysis, is necessary to fully understand the true benefit for patient care, and justification for resource utilisation.

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.

Discrimination, Reliability, Sensitivity, and Specificity of Robotic Surgical Proficiency Assessment With Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills and Binary Scoring Metrics: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To compare binary metrics and Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) evaluations of training outcome assessments for reliability, sensitivity, and specificity.

Background

GEARS-Likert-scale skills assessment are a widely accepted tool for robotic surgical training outcome evaluations. Proficiency-based progression (PBP) training is another methodology but uses binary performance metrics for evaluations.

Methods

In a prospective, randomized, and blinded study, we compared conventional with PBP training for a robotic suturing, knot-tying anastomosis task. Thirty-six surgical residents from 16 Belgium residency programs were randomized. In the skills laboratory, the PBP group trained until they demonstrated a quantitatively defined proficiency benchmark. The conventional group were yoked to the same training time but without the proficiency requirement. The final trial was video recorded and assessed with binary metrics and GEARS by robotic surgeons blinded to individual, group, and residency program. Sensitivity and specificity of the two assessment methods were evaluated with area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves.

Results

The PBP group made 42% fewer objectively assessed performance errors than the conventional group (P < 0.001) and scored 15% better on the GEARS assessment (P = 0.033). The mean interrater reliability for binary metrics and GEARS was 0.87 and 0.38, respectively. Binary total error metrics AUC was 97% and for GEARS 85%. With a sensitivity threshold of 0.8, false positives rates were 3% and 25% for, respectively, the binary and GEARS assessments.

Conclusions

Binary metrics for scoring a robotic VUA task demonstrated better psychometric properties than the GEARS assessment.