Initial Experience With Single-Port Robotic Right Colectomies: Results of an Investigator-Initiated Investigational Device Exemption Study Using a Novel Single-Port Robotic Platform.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been widely adopted in colorectal surgery. New technological breakthroughs have led to even less invasive alternatives like single-port surgery, but this has been hindered by technical challenges such as the collision of robotic arms within a limited space. The Intuitive da Vinci Single-Port robotic platform is a novel system that overcomes some of these challenges. IMPACT OF INNOVATION: This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of the Intuitive da Vinci Single-Port robotic platform in right segmental colectomies among adult patients. These findings may set the stage for more widespread use of single-port robotic surgery. TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: The Intuitive da Vinci Single-Port robot is a system designed specifically for single-port robotic surgery. This platform enables flexible port location and efficient internal and external range of motion using a single C-shaped arm. In the present study, right colectomies were performed in adult patients using this platform between May 2022 and November 2022, and they were compared to right colectomies in adult patients performed using the standard multiport platform between January 2019 and December 2022. The main outcome measure was safety and quality event rates. PRELIMINARY RESULTS: Of 30 patients, 16.7% of patients (n = 5) underwent single-port robotic right colectomy and 83.3% (n = 25) underwent multiport right colectomy. In the single-port group, 40% of patients (n = 2) developed a safety/quality event (postoperative portal vein thrombosis and excessive postoperative pain). In the multiport group, 32% of patients (n = 8) developed 1 safety/quality event and 8% (n = 2) had more than 1 event. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS: This preliminary study, one of the first Food and Drug Administration-approved, investigator-initiated uses of this platform in colorectal surgeries, shows that this platform is a safe and feasible option for right colectomies. On preliminary evaluation, it appears comparable in terms of relevant safety/quality events to the multiport platform. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05321134.

Consensus guidelines on the bedside assistant skills required in robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: While bedside assistants play a critical role in many robotic operations, substantial heterogeneity remains in bedside assistant training pathways. As such, this study aimed to develop consensus guidelines for bedside assistant skills required for team members in robotic operations. METHODS: We designed a study using the Delphi process to develop consensus guidelines around bedside assistant skills. We generated an initial list of bedside assistant skills from the literature, training materials, and expert input. We selected experts for the Delphi process based on prior scholarship in the area of robotic bedside assistant education and experience facilitating robotic bedside assistant training. For each item, respondents specified which robotic team members should have the skill from a list of "basic" bedside assistants, "advanced" bedside assistants, surgeons, surgical technologists, and circulating nurses. We conducted two rounds of the Delphi process and defined 80% agreement as sufficient for consensus. RESULTS: Fourteen experts participated in two rounds of the Delphi process. By the end of the second round, the group had reached consensus on 253 of 305 items (83%). The group determined that "basic" bedside assistants should have 52 skills and that "advanced" bedside assistants should have 60 skills. The group also determined that surgeons should have 54 skills, surgical technologists should have 25 skills, and circulating nurses should have 17 skills. Experts agreed that all participants should have certain communication skills and basic knowledge of aspects of the robotic system. CONCLUSIONS: We developed consensus guidelines on the skills required during robotic surgery by bedside assistants and other team members using the Delphi process. These findings can be used to design training around bedside assistant skills and assess team members to ensure that each team member has the appropriate skills. Hospitals can also use these guidelines to standardize expectations for robotic team members.

Robotic repair of perineal hernias: a video vignette and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Perineal hernias can be secondarily acquired following abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. While transabdominal minimally invasive techniques have traditionally used laparoscopy, there are few studies published on the robotic platform, which has been gaining popularity for other types of hernia repairs. We review the existing literature, share a video vignette, and provide practical tips for surgeons interested in adopting this approach. METHODS: A literature search in Pubmed was performed to include all articles in English describing robotic repair of perineal hernias with identification of variables of interest related to repair. A case presentation with an accompanying video vignette and lessons learned from the experience are provided. RESULTS: Seven case reports (four containing video) published between 2019 and 2022 were included. Most articles (n = 5) utilized the Da Vinci Si or Xi, and most patients (n = 5) had undergone abdominoperineal resection with neoadjuvant chemotherapy to treat rectal cancer. Patients were positioned in Trendelenburg with rightward tilt (n = 2), modified lithotomy (n = 1), or a combination of the two (n = 1). All articles (n = 7) reported closing the defect and using mesh. Three articles describe placing five ports (one camera, three robotic, one assistant). There were no significant intraoperative or postoperative complications reported, and no recurrence noted at 3-27 months follow-up. Based on our experience, as shown in the video vignette, we recommend lithotomy positioning, using porous polypropylene mesh anchored to the periosteum of the sacrum and peritoneum overlying the bladder and side wall, and placing a drain above the mesh. CONCLUSIONS: A robotic transabdominal approach to perineal hernia repair is a viable alternate to laparoscopy based on low complication rates and lack of recurrence. Prospective and longer duration data are needed to compare the techniques.

Comparison of advanced techniques for local excision of rectal lesions: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS) is an appealing alternative to transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for benign and early malignant rectal lesions that are not amenable to traditional open transanal excision. However, no studies to our knowledge have directly compared the three techniques. This study sought to compare peri-operative and pathologic outcomes of the three approaches. METHODS: The records of 29 consecutive patients who underwent TEM, TAMIS, or R-TAMIS at a single academic center between 2016 and 2020 were reviewed. Intra-operative details, pathological diagnosis and margins, and post-operative outcomes were recorded. The three groups were compared using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Overall, 16/29 patients were women and the median age was 57 (interquartile range (IQR): 28-81). Thirteen patients underwent TEM, six had TAMIS, and 10 had R-TAMIS. BMI was lower in the R-TAMIS patients (24.7; IQR 23.8-28.7), than in TEM (29.3; IQR 19.9-30.2), and TAMIS (30.4; IQR 26.6-32.9) patients. High grade dysplasia and/or invasive cancer was more common in TAMIS (80%) and R-TAMIS (66.7%) patients than in TEM patients (41.7%). The three groups did not differ significantly in tumor type or distance from the anal verge. No R-TAMIS patients had a positive surgical margin compared to 23.1% in the TEM group and 16.7% in the TAMIS group. Length of stay (median 1 day for TEM and R-TAMIS patients, 0 days for TAMIS patients) and 30-day readmission rates (7.7% of TEM, 0% of TAMIS, 10% of R-TAMIS patients) also did not differ among the groups. Median operative time was 110 min for TEM, 105 min for TAMIS, and 76 min for R-TAMIS patients. CONCLUSIONS: R-TAMIS may have several advantages over other advanced techniques for transanal excisions. R-TAMIS tended to be faster and to more often result in negative surgical margins compared to the two other techniques.

Outcomes Analysis of Biologic Mesh Use for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in Clean-Contaminated and Contaminated Ventral Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Repair of grade 3 and grade 4 ventral hernias is a distinct challenge, given the potential for infection, and the comorbid nature of the patient population. This study evaluates our institutional outcomes when performing single-stage repair of these hernias, with biologic mesh for abdominal wall reinforcement. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was reviewed for all patients undergoing repair of grade 3 (potentially contaminated) or grade 4 (infected) hernias, as classified by the Ventral Hernia Working Group. All those patients undergoing repair with component separation techniques and biologic mesh reinforcement were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Univariate analysis was performed to define factors predictive of hernia recurrence and wound complications. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients underwent single-stage repair of grade 3 and grade 4 hernias during a 4-year period. The overall postoperative wound infection rate was 15%, and hernia recurrence rate was 12%. Almost all recurrences were seen in grade 4 hernia repairs, and in those patients undergoing bridging repair of the hernia. One patient required removal of the biologic mesh. Those factors predicting hernia recurrence were smoking (P = 0.023), increasing body mass index (P = 0.012), increasing defect size (P = 0.010), and bridging repair (P = 0.042). No mesh was removed due to perioperative infection. Mean follow-up time for this patient population was 25 months. CONCLUSIONS: Single-stage repair of grade 3 hernias performed with component separation and biologic mesh reinforcement is effective and offers a low recurrence rate. Furthermore, the use of biologic mesh allows for avoidance of mesh explantation in instances of wound breakdown or infection. Bridging repairs are associated with a high recurrence rate, as is single-stage repair of grade 4 hernias.

Vascular Anastomoses and Dissection: A Six-Part Simulation Curriculum for Surgical Residents.

Introduction: As surgical technologies grow, so too do demands on surgical trainees to master increasing numbers of skill sets. With the rise of endovascular surgery, trainees have fewer opportunities to practice open vascular techniques in the operating room. Simulation can bridge this gap. However, existing published open vascular simulation curricula are basic or based on expensive models. Methods: We iteratively developed an open vascular skills curriculum for second-year surgery residents comprising six 2-hour sessions. We refined the curriculum based on feedback from learners and faculty. The curriculum required skilled facilitators, vascular instruments, and tissue models. We evaluated the latest iteration with a survey and by assessing participants' technical skills using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) form. Results: Over the past 10 years, 101 residents have participated in the curriculum. Nine of 13 residents who participated in the latest curricular iteration completed the survey. All respondents rated the sessions as excellent and strongly agreed that they had improved their abilities to perform anastomoses with tissue and prosthetic. Facilitators completed 18 OSATS forms for residents in the fifth and sixth sessions of the latest iteration. Residents scored well overall, with a median 26.5 (interquartile range: 24-29) out of a possible score of 35, with highest scores on knowledge of instruments. Discussion: This simulation-based curriculum facilitates open vascular surgical skill acquisition among surgery residents. The curriculum allows residents to acquire critical vascular skills that are challenging to learn in an increasingly demanding operative setting.

Comparing observed and preferred instruction in robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The unique setup of robotic surgery challenges the traditional instructional dynamic between surgical learners and teachers. Previous studies have posited difficulties such as reliance on observational learning and ease of takeover. However, we lack understanding of how these instructional challenges manifest and are perceived by learners. Improving instruction has the potential to optimize education and performance in robotic surgery. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted robotic case observations and learner interviews focusing on instruction in robotic surgery. We deductively generated codes in a theory-informed manner after review of the instructional literature in surgery, medicine, and other fields. We applied these codes in a rigorous directed content analysis of field notes and transcripts to identify themes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight faculty, fellows, and residents participated in 10 robotic cases and 20 semistructured interviews. Observed practices on the basis of case observations differed substantially from preferred practices on the basis of interview data. Using 37 codes, we identified 4 main themes related to instruction in robotic surgery: contextualization, individualization, autonomy, and multimodality. We contrasted observed and preferred instruction in each of these areas to generate instructional considerations that may better align preferences and practices. CONCLUSIONS: We observed several suboptimal instructional practices that contradicted preferred ways of learning. We suggested robotic-specific instructional considerations such as using multimodality to promote active learning and to reduce ambiguity. We also provided considerations applicable to all types of surgery, such as to include rationale to promote learning consolidation and to frame operative steps to allow trainees to plan their participation.

An At-Home Laparoscopic Curriculum for Junior Residents in Surgery, Obstetrics/Gynecology, and Urology.

Introduction: Laparoscopic surgery requires significant training, and prior studies have shown that surgical residents lack key laparoscopic skills. Many educators have implemented simulation curricula to improve laparoscopic training. Given limited time for dedicated, in-person simulation center practice, at-home training has emerged as a possible mechanism by which to expand training and promote practice. There remains a gap in published at-home laparoscopic curricula employing embedded feedback mechanisms. Methods: We developed a nine-task at-home laparoscopic curriculum and an end-of-curriculum assessment following Kern's six-step approach. We implemented the curriculum over 4 months with first- to third-year residents. Results: Of 47 invited residents from general surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, and urology, 37 (79%) participated in the at-home curriculum, and 25 (53%) participated in the end-of-curriculum assessment. Residents who participated in the at-home curriculum completed a median of six of nine tasks (interquartile range: 3-8). Twenty-two residents (47%) responded to a postcurriculum survey. Of these, 19 (86%) reported that their laparoscopic skills improved through completion of the curriculum, and the same 19 (86%) felt that the curriculum should be continued for future residents. Residents who completed more at-home curriculum tasks scored higher on the end-of-curriculum assessment (p = .009 with adjusted R 2 of .28) and performed assessment tasks in less time (p = .004 with adjusted R 2 of .28). Discussion: This learner-centered laparoscopic curriculum provides guiding examples, spaced practice, feedback, and graduated skill development to enable junior residents to improve their laparoscopic skills in a low-stakes, at-home environment.

Comparing Peer and Faculty Feedback for Asynchronous Laparoscopic Skill Acquisition.

OBJECTIVE: Traditionally, expert surgeons have provided surgical trainees with feedback about their simulation performance, including for asynchronous practice. Unfortunately, innumerable time demands may limit experts' ability to provide feedback. It is unknown whether and how peer feedback is an effective mechanism to help residents acquire laparoscopic skill in an asynchronous setting. As such, we aimed to assess the effect of peer feedback on laparoscopic performance and determine how residents perceive giving and receiving peer feedback. DESIGN: We conducted a convergent mixed methods study. In the quantitative component, we randomized residents to receive feedback on home laparoscopic tasks from peers or faculty. We then held an end-of-curriculum, in-person laparoscopic assessment with members from both groups and compared performance on the in-person assessment between the groups. In the qualitative component, we conducted interviews with resident participants to explore experiences with feedback and performance. Three authors coded and rigorously reviewed interview data using a directed content analysis. SETTING: We performed this study at a single tertiary academic institution: the University of California, San Francisco. PARTICIPANTS: We invited 47 junior residents in general surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, and urology to participate, of whom 37 (79%) participated in the home curriculum and 25 (53%) participated in the end-of-curriculum assessment. RESULTS: Residents in the peer feedback group scored similarly on the final assessment (mean 70.7%; SD 16.1%) as residents in the faculty feedback group (mean 71.8%; SD 11.9%) (p = 0.86). Through qualitative analysis of interviews with 13 residents, we identified key reasons for peer feedback's efficacy: shared mental models, the ability to brainstorm and appreciate new approaches, and a low-stakes learning environment. CONCLUSIONS: We found that peer and faculty feedback led to similar performance in basic laparoscopy and that residents engaged positively with peer feedback, suggesting that peer feedback can be used when residents learn basic laparoscopy.

Robotic transanal excision of rectal lesions: expert perspective and literature review.

Transanal excision of benign lesions, moderately or well-differentiated rectal T1 adenocarcinomas is typically completed via transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) or laparoscopic transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). Robotic platforms provide ergonomic comfort in an enclosed space, enhanced range of motion, and superior 3D visualization. This study sought to perform a literature review of robotic TAMIS (R-TAMIS) and provide expert commentary on the technique. A Pubmed literature search was performed. Study design, robot type, indication, techniques compared, surgical margins, conversion, complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, patient positioning, and defect closure were collected from included articles. Expert opinion on pre-operative planning, technical details, and possible pitfalls was provided, with an accompanying video. Twelve articles published between 2013 and 2022 were included. Five were case reports, three case series, two prospective cohort studies, one retrospective cohort study, and one Phase II trial. The Da Vinci Si (n = 3), Xi (n = 2), single port (n = 3) and flex robotic system (n = 2) were used. Five studies reported negative surgical margins, one reported positive margins, and six did not comment. Operating room time ranged from 45 to 552 min and EBL ranged from 0 to 100 mL. Patient positioning varied based on lesion location but included supine, prone, modified lithotomy, and prone jackknife positions. 11/12 studies reported defect closure, most commonly with V-Loc absorbable suture. We recommend pre-operative MRI abdomen/pelvis, digital rectal exam, and rigid proctoscopy; prone jackknife patient positioning to avoid collisions with robotic arms; and defect closure of full-thickness excisions with backhanded running V-Loc suture.

Experience matters for robotic assistance: an analysis of case data.

Many robotic procedures require active participation by assistants. Most prior work on assistants' effect on outcomes has been limited in procedural focus and scope, with studies reporting differing results. Knowing how assistant experience affects operating room time could inform operating room case scheduling and provide an impetus for additional assistant training. As such, this retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the association between assistant experience and operating room time for 2291 robotic-assisted operations performed from 2016 to 2022 at our institution. Linear regression showed a significant association between the presence of a junior resident and increased case length differential with an increase of 26.9 min (p = 0.01). There were no significant associations between the presence of a senior resident (p = 0.52), presence of a fellow (p = 0.20), or presence of a physician assistant (p = 0.43) and case length differential. The finding of increased operating room time in the presence of a junior resident during robotic cases supports consideration of the adoption of formal assistant training programs for residents to improve efficiency.

Robotic training for medical students: feasibility of a pilot simulation curriculum.

While robotic procedures are growing rapidly, medical students have a limited role in robotic surgeries. Curricula are needed to enhance engagement. We examined feasibility of augmenting Intuitive Surgical (IS) robotic training for medical students. As a pilot, 18 senior students accepted an invitation to a simulation course with a daVinci robot trainer. Course teaching objectives included introducing robotic features, functionalities, and roles. A 1-h online module from the IS learning platform and a 4-h in-person session comprised the course. The in-person session included an overview of the robot by an IS trainer (1.5 h), skills practice at console (1.5 h), and a simulation exercise focused on the bedside assist role (1 h). Feasibility included assessing implementation and acceptability using a post-session survey and focus group (FG). Survey responses were compiled. FG transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis techniques. Fourteen students participated. Implementation was successful as interested students signed up and completed each of the course components. Regarding acceptability, students reported the training valuable and recommended it as preparation for robotic cases during core clerkships and sub-internships. In addition, FGs revealed 4 themes: (1) perceived expectations of students in the OR; (2) OR vs. outside-OR learning; (3) simulation of stress; and (4) opportunities to improve the simulation component. To increase preparation for the robotic OR and shift robotic training earlier in the surgical education continuum, educators should consider hands-on simulation for medical students. We demonstrate feasibility although logistics may limit scalability for large numbers of students.

Home practice for robotic surgery: a randomized controlled trial of a low-cost simulation model.

Pre-operative simulated practice allows trainees to learn robotic surgery outside the operating room without risking patient safety. While simulation practice has shown efficacy, simulators are expensive and frequently inaccessible. Cruff (J Surg Educ 78(2): 379-381, 2021) described a low-cost simulation model to learn hand movements for robotic surgery. Our study evaluates whether practice with low-cost home simulation models can improve trainee performance on robotic surgery simulators. Home simulation kits were adapted from those described by Cruff (J Surg Educ 78(2): 379-381, 2021). Hand controllers were modified to mimic the master tool manipulators (MTMs) on the da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS). Medical students completed two da Vinci exercises: Sea Spikes 1 (SS1) and Big Dipper Needle Driving (BDND). They were subsequently assigned to either receive a home simulation kit or not. Students returned two weeks later and repeated SS1 and BDND. Overall score, economy of motion, time to completion, and penalty subtotal were collected, and analyses of covariance were performed. Semi-structured interviews assessed student perceptions of the robotic simulation experience. Thirty-three medical students entered the study. Twenty-nine completed both sessions. The difference in score improvement between the experimental and control groups was not significant. In interviews, students provided suggestions to increase fidelity and usefulness of low-cost robotic home simulation. Low-cost home simulation models did not improve student performance on dVSS after two weeks of at-home practice. Interview data highlighted areas to focus future simulation efforts. Ongoing work is necessary to develop low-cost solutions to facilitate practice for robotic surgery and foster more inclusive and accessible surgical education.

Artificial intelligence based real-time video ergonomic assessment and training improves resident ergonomics.

BACKGROUND: Surgery demands long hours and intense exertion raising ergonomic concerns. We piloted a sensorless artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted ergonomics analysis app to determine its feasibility for use with residents. METHODS: Surgery residents performed simulated laparoscopic tasks before and after a review of the SCORE ergonomics curriculum while filmed with a sensorless app from Kinetica Labs that calculates joint angles as a metric of ergonomics. A survey was completed before the session and a focus group was conducted after. RESULTS: Thirteen surgical residents participated in the study. The brief intervention took little time and residents improved their ergonomic scores in neck and right shoulder angles. Residents expressed increased awareness of ergonomics based on the session content and AI information. All trainees desired more training in ergonomics. CONCLUSIONS: Ergonomic assessment AI software can provide immediate feedback to surgical trainees to improve ergonomics. Additional studies using sensorless AI technology are needed.

Confronting new challenges: Faculty perceptions of gaps in current laparoscopic curricula in a changing training landscape.

Background: Opportunities for residents to develop laparoscopic skills have decreased with the rise in robotic operations and the development of complex, subspecialized laparoscopic operations. Given the changing training landscape, this study aimed to identify laparoscopic surgeons' perceptions of gaps in current laparoscopic skills in general surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, and urology residency programs. Methods: Laparoscopic surgeons who operate with residents participated in semi-structured interviews. Questions addressed expectations for resident proficiency, deficits in laparoscopic surgical skills, and barriers to learning and teaching. Two authors independently coded de-identified transcripts followed by a conventional content analysis. Results: Fourteen faculty members from thirteen subspecialties participated. Faculty identified three main areas to improve laparoscopic training across specialties: foundational knowledge, technical skills, and cognitive skills. They also recognized an overarching opportunity to address faculty development. Conclusions: This qualitative study highlighted key deficiencies in laparoscopic training that have emerged in the current, changing era of minimally invasive surgery. Key message: This qualitative study identified laparoscopic educators' perceptions of deficiencies in laparoscopic training. Findings emphasized the importance of incorporating high quality educational practices to optimize training in the current changing landscape of laparoscopic surgery.

Assessment of Surgeon Performance of Advanced Open Surgical Skills Using a Microskills-Based Novel Curriculum.

Importance: The increase in minimally invasive surgical procedures has eroded exposure of general surgery residents to open operations. High-fidelity simulation, together with deliberate instruction, is needed for advanced open surgical skill (AOSS) development. Objective: To collect validity evidence for AOSS tools to support a shared model for instruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included postresidency surgeons (PRSs) and second-year general surgery residents (R2s) at a single academic medical center who completed simulated tasks taught within the AOSS curriculum between June 1 and October 31, 2021. Exposures: The AOSS curriculum includes 6 fine-suture and needle handling tasks, including deep suture tying (with and without needles) and continuous suturing using the pitch-and-catch and push-push-pull techniques (both superficial and deep). Teaching and assessment are based on specific microskills using a 3-dimensional printed iliac fossa model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The PRS group was timed and scored (5-point Likert scale) on 10 repetitions of each task. Six months after receiving instruction on the AOSS tasks, the R2 group was similarly timed and scored. Results: The PRS group included 14 surgeons (11 male [79%]; 8 [57%] attending surgeons) who completed the simulation; the R2 group, 9 surgeons (5 female [55%]) who completed the simulation. Score and time variability were greater for the R2s compared with the PRSs for all tasks. The R2s scored lower and took longer on (1) deep pitch-and-catch suturing (69% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 142.0 [31.7] seconds vs 77% for a mean [SD] of 95.9 [29.4] seconds) and deep push-push-pull suturing (63% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 284.0 [72.9] seconds vs 85% for a mean [SD] of 141.4 [29.1] seconds) relative to the corresponding superficial tasks; (2) suture tying with a needle vs suture tying without a needle (74% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 64.6 [19.8] seconds vs 90% for a mean [SD] of 54.4 [15.6] seconds); and (3) the deep push-push-pull vs pitch-and-catch techniques (63% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 284.0 [72.9] seconds vs 69% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 142.0 [31.7] seconds). For the PRS group, time was negatively associated with score for the 3 hardest tasks: superficial push-push-pull (ρ = 0.60; P = .02), deep pitch-and-catch (ρ = 0.73; P = .003), and deep push-push-pull (ρ = 0.81; P < .001). For the R2 group, time was negatively associated with score for the 2 easiest tasks: suture tying without a needle (ρ = 0.78; P = .01) and superficial pitch-and-catch (ρ = 0.79; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study offer validity evidence for a novel AOSS curriculum; reveal differential difficulty of tasks that can be attributed to specific microskills; and suggest that position on the surgical learning curve may dictate the association between competency and speed. Together these findings suggest specific, actionable opportunities to guide instruction of AOSS, including which microskills to focus on, when individual rehearsal vs guided instruction is more appropriate, and when to focus on speed.

Transforming Surgical Education through a Resident Robotic Curriculum.

Objective: Here, we describe a systematic approach to design, implement, and assess a robotic surgery curriculum for surgical residents. By describing our process, including identifying and addressing institutional challenges, we illustrate successful development of a robust curriculum. Summary Background Data: As robotic-assisted surgeries increase, educational challenges have emerged and illustrate an alarming impact on medical training. Robotic curricula are frequently grounded in the industry's educational materials resulting in a variety of existing resident curricula that lack cognitive components and critical evaluation. As such, surgical educators struggle to identify the curricular restructuring needs that likely accompany emerging technologies. It is essential to develop a curricular framework for the surgical education community to approach the ongoing and inevitable integration of new technologies. Methods: Our process parallels the widely accepted approach to curricular development in medical education described by Kern et al. Using this 6-step model, we describe derivation of a curriculum that was data driven, features multimodal educational strategies, and provides documentation methods that allow for continued evaluation and assessment at the individual and departmental level. Results: This study highlights the systematic process of design, implementation and assessment of a robotic surgery curriculum for surgical residents. Built on a robust national and local needs assessment, and further strengthened by preemptive identification of institutional challenges, this curricular model includes a structured documentation system that allows for ongoing evaluation, assessment, and monitoring of curricular progress. Conclusions: We illustrate a robustly built curricular structure that can be adopted, adapted, and successfully implemented at other training institutions around the world.

Teaching in the robotic environment: Use of alternative approaches to guide operative instruction.

BACKGROUND: With the rapid growth of robotic-assisted surgery, surgical educators recognize the need to develop appropriate curriculum for trainees. However, the unique robotic learning environment challenges educators to determine the most appropriate ways to instruct surgical residents. The purpose of this study was to characterize the instructional techniques used in the robotic teaching environment by observing attending surgeon's language and behaviors during resident robotic dissection. STUDY DESIGN: Attending robotic surgeons guided senior residents through robotic dissection of live porcine tissue. Three observers documented the language, gestures and behaviors occurring at three different stations, and at a fourth station, they obtained video and audio recordings of the instructional interaction. Afterwards, instructors and residents met in separate focus groups. The authors used qualitative content analysis to summarize the type and frequency of teaching behaviors and focus group information to clarify the analysis. We compared the frequency of the behaviors to an existing taxonomy of 16 operative teaching behaviors in open and laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Robotic instructors used 11 of the 16 behaviors previously described for surgical instruction. Frequency of use differed in the robotic environment due to relevance and application of new techniques. New, unique robotic teaching behaviors involved disengaging the resident from the operative console for either onscreen direction or for gesturing with verbal instruction. Focus group participants highlighted these behaviors as essential. CONCLUSION: Robotic instruction uses a different set of instructional approaches compared to open and laparoscopic surgery. New teaching behaviors emerged driven by physical separation within the robotic environment. Robotic faculty development should emphasize these unique features.

A robotic teaching session: separating tool from technique to emphasize a cognitive focused teaching environment.

Most robotic curriculum requires simulation on a console prior to operative exposure. This practice does not permit experiencing the physical collisions with the robotic tools, which occurs during surgery. We designed and evaluated an innovative curriculum to address cognitive components and trouble-shoot robotic collisions when the surgeon lacks haptic feedback. We adapted our previous curriculum, designed to teach and document proficiency of robotic docking and instrument exchange, to include robotic collisions. Participants received a 10-min, didactic presentation describing finger grips, internal and external collisions, and instruction on how to trouble-shoot each type. Residents worked in pairs, one at the console and the other at bedside, to complete two simulation exercises. Participants manipulated the robot to determine how best to resolve the situations. Residents completed retrospective post-course surveys and instructors completed a final survey. For comparison, non-participants, PGY-matched surgical trainees, also completed a survey. All participants demonstrated proficiency in docking and instrument exchange. Compared to pre-session, post-session knowledge and confidence improved in five domains reflecting session objectives (p < 0.05). Participants could list and troubleshoot collisions more than the non-participant matched peers (p < 0.05). Instructors supported the additional collision components, but noted learners needed more time. Two of three non-participants expressed interest in a teaching session to address these components. Collisions occur using robotic technology and rarely get addressed in surgical training. We describe an opportunity for surgeons to trouble-shoot robotic collisions in a safe, simulated environment. This easily transferable curriculum represents one of the first industry-independent robotic teaching sessions for surgical trainees.