Abstract
The use of robot-assisted laparoscopic technology is rapidly expanding, with applicability in numerous disciplines of surgery. Training to perform robot-assisted laparoscopic urological procedures requires a motivated learner, a motivated teacher or proctor, a curriculum with stepwise learning objectives, and regular access to a training robot. In light of the many constraints that limit surgical training, animal models should be utilized to quantifiably improve the surgical skills of residents and surgical fellows, before these skills are put into practice on patients. A system based on appropriate supervision, graduated responsibility, real-time feedback, and objective measure of progress has proven to be safe and effective. Surgical team education directed towards cohesion is perhaps the most important aspect of training. At present, there are very few published guidelines for the safe introduction of robotic urologic surgery at an institution. Increasing evidence demonstrates the effects of learning curve and surgical volume on oncological and functional outcomes in robotic surgery (RS). This necessitates the introduction of mechanisms and guidelines by which trainee surgeons can attain a sufficient level of skill, without compromising the safety of patients. Guidelines for outcome monitoring following RS should be developed, to ensure patient safety and sufficient baseline surgeon skill.
Key Points
-
The contemporary hospital environment has many constraints that limit surgical training; these pressures have modified the way in which surgical residents and fellows are trained
-
Training in a preclinical setting is important; this involves inanimate dry-lab practice with low-fidelity models, as well as animate or cadaveric robotic surgery
-
Systematic training in using a surgical robotic system on an animal model has been shown to result in a quantifiable improvement in surgical skills
-
Robotic skills training with appropriate supervision, graduated responsibility, real-time feedback, and objective measure of progress has proven to be safe and effective
-
Virtual reality simulators allow the trainee to achieve a high level of objectively measured skill before he or she is permitted to operate on a patient
-
Institutions must adopt guidelines for the safe introduction of robotic surgery to guarantee sufficient surgical skill level and ensure patient safety
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rogers, C. G. et al. Maximizing console surgeon independence during robot-assisted renal surgery by using the Fourth Arm and TilePro. J. Endourol. 23, 115–121 (2009).
Yoshida, M., Furukawa, T., Morikawa, Y., Kitagawa, Y. & Kitajima, M. The developments and achievements of endoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and function-preserving surgery. Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 863–869 (2010).
Barnes, R. W., Lang, N. P. & Whiteside, M. F. Halstedian technique revisited. Innovations in teaching surgical skills. Ann. Surg. 210, 118–121 (1989).
Vickers, A. J. et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 10, 475–480 (2009).
Dent, T. L. Training, credentialing, and evaluation in laparoscopic surgery. Surg. Clin. North Am. 72, 1003–1011 (1992).
Jakimowicz, J. J. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery recommendations for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann. Chir. Gynaecol. 83, 137–141 (1994).
Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Guidelines for granting of privileges for laparoscopic and/or thoracoscopic general surgery. Surg. Endosc. 12, 379–380 (1998).
Aggarwal, R., Moorthy, K. & Darzi, A. Laparoscopic skills training and assessment. Br. J. Surg. 91, 1549–1558 (2004).
Schirmer, B. D., Edge, S. B., Dix, J. & Miller, A. D. Incorporation of laparoscopy into a surgical endoscopy training program. Am. J. Surg. 163, 46–52 (1992).
Lee, J. Y., Mucksavage, P., Sundaram, C. P. & McDougall, E. M. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J. Urol. 185, 1191–1197 (2011).
Fried, G. M. Simulators for laparoscopic surgery: a coming of age. Asian J. Surg. 27, 1–3 (2004).
Fried, G. M. et al. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann. Surg. 240, 518–528 (2004).
Feldman, L. S., Sherman, V. & Fried, G. M. Using simulators to assess laparoscopic competence: ready for widespread use? Surgery 135, 28–42 (2004).
Donias, H. W., Karamanoukian, R. L., Glick, P. L., Bergsland, J. & Karamanoukian, H. L. Survey of resident training in robotic surgery. Am. Surg. 68, 177–181 (2002).
Patel, Y. R. et al. Are you ready to become a robo-surgeon? Am. Surg. 69, 599–603 (2003).
Sachdeva, A. K. Acquiring skills in new procedures and technology: the challenge and the opportunity. Arch. Surg. 140, 387–389 (2005).
Shah, G. & Haas, G. Teaching daVinci Robot Surgical System—a new paradigm. Journal fur Urologie und Urogynakologie 13, 22–23 (2006).
Chou, D. S. et al. Initial impact of a dedicated postgraduate laparoscopic mini-residency on clinical practice patterns. J. Endourol. 19, 360–365 (2005).
Gulbins, H. et al. 3D-visualization improves the dry-lab coronary anastomoses using the Zeus robotic system. Heart Surg. Forum 2, 318–325 (1999).
Mohr, F. W. et al. Computer-enhanced “robotic” cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 121, 842–853 (2001).
Rassweiler, J., Binder, J. & Frede, T. Robotic and telesurgery: will they change our future? Curr. Opin. Urol. 11, 309–320 (2001).
Hanly, E. J. et al. Multiservice laparoscopic surgical training using the daVinci surgical system. Am. J. Surg. 187, 309–315 (2004).
Patel, H. R., Linares, A. & Joseph, J. V. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Surg. Oncol. 18, 242–246 (2009).
Custers, E. J. & Ten Cate, O. T. Very long-term retention of basic science knowledge in doctors after graduation. Medical Education 45, 422–430 (2011).
Richardson, J. T. Measures of short-term memory: a historical review. Cortex 43, 635–650 (2007).
Rashid, H. H. et al. Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 68, 75–79 (2006).
Menon, M. et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J. Urol. 168, 945–949 (2002).
Ahlering, T. E., Skarecky, D., Lee, D. & Clayman, R. V. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 170, 1738–1741 (2003).
Patel, V. R., Tully, A. S., Holmes, R. & Lindsay, J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J. Urol. 174, 269–272 (2005).
Steinberg, P. L., Merguerian, P. A., Bihrle, W. 3rd & Seigne, J. D. The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 72, 1068–1072 (2008).
Colegrove, P. M., Winfield, H. N., Donovan, J. F. Jr & See, W. A. Laparoscopic practice patterns among North American urologists 5 years after formal training. J. Urol. 161, 881–886 (1999).
Gamboa, A. J. et al. Long-term impact of a robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mini fellowship training program on postgraduate urological practice patterns. J. Urol. 181, 778–782 (2009).
Jones, A., Eden, C. & Sullivan, M. E. Mutual mentoring in laparoscopic urology—a natural progression from laparoscopic fellowship. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 89, 422–425 (2007).
Marguet, C. G. et al. Hand assisted laparoscopic training for postgraduate urologists: the role of mentoring. J. Urol. 172, 286–289 (2004).
Patel, V. R. Essential elements to the establishment and design of a successful robotic surgery program. Int. J. Med. Robot 2, 28–35 (2006).
Chitwood, W. R. Jr et al. Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann. Surg. 234, 475–486 (2001).
Albani, J. M. & Lee, D. I. Virtual reality-assisted robotic surgery simulation. J. Endourol. 21, 285–287 (2007).
Stefanidis, D. et al. Skill retention following proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery 138, 165–170 (2005).
Seymour, N. E. et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann. Surg. 236, 458–464 (2002).
Grantcharov, T. P. et al. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br. J. Surg. 91, 146–150 (2004).
Scott, D. J. et al. The changing face of surgical education: simulation as the new paradigm. J. Surg. Res. 147, 189–193 (2008).
Gallagher, A. G., Leonard, G. & Traynor, O. J. Role and feasibility of psychomotor and dexterity testing in selection for surgical training. ANZ J. Surg. 79, 108–113 (2009).
Feifer, A. et al. Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality and hybrid simulation for robotic surgical training. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10060.x.
Zorn, K. C. et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J. Urol. 182, 1126–1132 (2009).
Budaus, L. et al. Impact of surgical experience on in-hospital complication rates in patients undergoing minimally invasive prostatectomy: a population-based study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 18, 839–847 (2011).
Sachdeva, A. K. & Blair, P. G. (eds) Surgical Patient Safety: Essential Information for Surgeons in Today's Environment (American College of Surgeons, Chicago, 2004).
Griffen, F. B., Schniedman, D. S. & Brown, C. Risk management in the 21st century. AUA Update Series, 266 (2008).
Livingston, E. H. & Harwell, J. D. The medicolegal aspects of proctoring. Am. J. Surg. 184, 26–30 (2002).
Verification by the American College of Surgeons for the use of emerging technologies. Bull. Am. Coll. Surg. 83, 34–35 (1998).
Badani, K. K., Hemal, A. K., Peabody, J. O. & Menon, M. Robotic radical prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute training experience. World J. Urol. 24, 148–151 (2006).
Bell, R. H. Surgical council on resident education: a new organization devoted to graduate surgical education. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 204, 341–346 (2007).
Scott, D. J. & Dunnington, G. L. The new ACS/APDS Skills Curriculum: moving the learning curve out of the operating room. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 12, 213–221 (2008).
Cadeddu, J. A. et al. Complications of laparoscopic procedures after concentrated training in urological laparoscopy. J. Urol. 166, 2109–2111 (2001).
Kwon, E. O. et al. Impact of robotic training on surgical and pathologic outcomes during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 76, 363–368 (2010).
Zorn, K. C. et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy learning curve of a fellowship-trained laparoscopic surgeon. J. Endourol. 21, 441–447 (2007).
Schroeck, F. R. et al. Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. Urology 71, 597–601 (2008).
Thiel, D. D., Francis, P., Heckman, M. G. & Winfield, H. N. Prospective evaluation of factors affecting operating time in a residency/fellowship training program incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J. Endourol. 22, 1331–1338 (2008).
Lee, K. et al. Impact of pre-operative warm-up exercises on surgical performance in urology. Presented at the 28th World Congress on Endourology and SWL (Chicago IL, 2010).
Makiyama, K. et al. The development of patient specific simulator for laparoscopic renal surgery. J. Urol. 185 (Suppl. 4S), e597 (2011).
Bridges, M. & Diamond, D. L. The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. Am. J. Surg. 177, 28–32 (1999).
Seixas-Mikelus, S. A. et al. Can image-based virtual reality help teach anatomy? J. Endourol. 24, 629–634 (2010).
Seixas-Mikelus, S. A. et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int. 107, 1130–1135 (2011).
Sethi, A. S., Peine, W. J., Mohammadi, Y. & Sundaram, C. P. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J. Endourol. 23, 503–508 (2009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All five authors researched the data for the article, provided substantial contributions to discussions of the content, and reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission. D. Liberman, Q.-D. Trinh, C. Jeldres, and K. C. Zorn contributed to writing the article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liberman, D., Trinh, QD., Jeldres, C. et al. Training and outcome monitoring in robotic urologic surgery. Nat Rev Urol 9, 17–22 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2011.164
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2011.164
This article is cited by
-
3-D Imaging and Simulation for Nephron Sparing Surgical Training
Current Urology Reports (2016)