Residents perform better technically, have less stress and workload, and prefer robotic to laparoscopic technique during inanimate simulation.

INTRODUCTION: With the widespread adoption of minimally invasive surgery, there is a growing need for surgical residents to be trained by a procedure-specific curriculum. This study aimed to evaluate the technical performance and feedback of surgical residents undergoing the robotic and laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) and gastrojejunostomy (GJ) biotissue modules. METHODS: A total of 23 PGY-3 surgical residents participated in this study and performed the laparoscopic and robotic HJ and GJ drills, which were recorded and scored by two independent graders using the modified objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS). After completing each drill, all participants filled out the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), Borg Exertion Scale, and Edwards Arousal Rating Questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty-two (95.7%) residents had already received fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery certification. Eighteen (78.3%) residents had robotic virtual simulation training and the median (range) number of robotic surgery console experience was 4 (0-30). In the HJ comparison of the six OSATS domains, the robotic system was superior in Gentleness (p = 0.031). In the GJ comparison, the robotic system was superior in Time and Motion (p < 0.001), Instrument Handling (p = 0.001), Flow of Operation (p = 0.002), Tissue Exposure (p = 0.013), and Summary (p < 0.001). Participants answered significantly higher demand scores for laparoscopy on all six facets of NASA-TLX for both HJ and GJ (p < 0.05). The Borg Level of Exertion was > 2 points higher for laparoscopic HJ and GJ (p < 0.001). Residents rated more Nervousness and Anxiety for laparoscopic compared to robotic (p < 0.05) HJ and GJ. Additionally, when asked to score preference for robotic and laparoscopic approach in terms of technique and ergonomics, residents scored robot as better (laparoscopy worse) for both HJ and GJ in both domains. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic surgical system provided a more favorable environment for trainees with less mental and physical burden for minimally invasive HJ and GJ curriculum.

How to integrate robotic training in surgical residency? An example of a 2-week robotic rotation.

General surgery residents should be proficiently trained in robotic surgery. However, there is currently no standardized robotic training curriculum. We aimed to evaluate two approaches to a robotic curriculum and how implementing a virtual reality (VR) simulation curriculum improves trainee robotic performance. From 2019 to 2022, two models of a robotic training curriculum were examined: an in-unit rotation (IUR) and a 2-week curriculum (2WR). The VR curriculum was completed using the da Vinci® Skill Simulator. The curriculum used a pre/post-test design. Residents completed a pre-test that consisted of 4 VR exercises (graded 0-100%) and 3 inanimate box trainer exercises (graded using modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills). Then, residents completed a VR curriculum of 23 modules. Following the curriculum, residents were given a post-test with the same pre-test exercises. Time necessary to complete the curriculum and compliance were recorded. Of the 11 residents who participated in the IUR, 4 completed the VR curriculum. Comparatively, 100% (n = 23) of residents in the 2WR completed the curriculum. Average time to complete the VR curriculum was 3.8 h. After completion of the 2WR curriculum, resident performance improved from pre-test to post-test: VR test scores increased (160% vs 223%, p < 0.001), OSATS scores increased (15.0 vs 21.0, p < 0.001), and time to complete inanimate exercises decreased (1083 vs 756 s, p = 0.001). Residents who mastered all modules had higher post-test VR scores (241% vs 214%, p = 0.024). General surgery residents demonstrated improved compliance with the 2WR. The VR curriculum improved resident robotic performance in both virtual and inanimate domains.