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.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology.

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Robotic pancreas surgery for pancreatic cancer.

Since the introduction of robotic pancreas surgery in the early 2000s, there has been significant increase in the adoption of the robot to perform complex pancreatic resections. However, utilization of the robot for pancreatic cancer has lagged behind due to concern for inferior oncologic outcomes. Furthermore, research in this field has previously been limited to small, single institution observational studies. Recent and ongoing randomized control trials in robotic distal pancreatectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy have aimed to address concerns regarding the use of robotic techniques in pancreatic cancer. Together, these studies suggest similar, if not improved, outcomes with a robotic approach, including shorter hospital stays, expedited recovery with less post-operative complications, and equivalent resection rates, when compared to the standard open approaches. Additionally, surgical training in robotic pancreas surgery is of equal importance for patient safety. This review summarizes the available literature on the efficacy and safety of robotic pancreas surgery for pancreatic cancer, with specific focus on robotic distal pancreatectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

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.

Determinants of brain tumor malpractice litigation outcome and indemnity payments: a 29-year nationwide analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Medical malpractice litigation is a significant challenge in neurosurgery, with more than 25% of a neurosurgeon's career on average spent with an open malpractice claim. While earlier research has elucidated characteristics of litigation related to brain tumor treatment, factors impacting outcome and indemnity payment amount are incompletely understood. METHODS: The authors identified all medical malpractice cases related to brain tumors from 1988 to 2017 in VerdictSearch, a database of 200,000 cases from all 50 states. The outcome for each case was dichotomized from the perspective of the defendant physician as favorable (defendant victory) or unfavorable (plaintiff victory or settlement). Indemnity payments were recorded for cases that resulted in settlement or plaintiff victory. Univariate regression was used to assess the association between case characteristics and case outcome as well as indemnity payment amount. Subsequently, significant variables were used to generate multivariate models for each outcome. Statistical significance was maintained at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 113 cases were analyzed, resulting most commonly in defendant (physician) victory (46.9%), followed by settlement and plaintiff victory (both 26.5%). The most common specialty of the primary defendant was neurosurgery (35.4%), and the most common allegation was improper diagnosis (59.3%). Indemnity payments totaled $191,621,392, with neurosurgical defendants accounting for $109,000,314 (56.9%). The average payments for cases with a plaintiff victory ($3,333,654) and for settlements ($3,051,832) did not significantly differ (p = 0.941). The highest rates of unfavorable outcomes were observed among radiologists (63.6%) and neurosurgeons (57.5%) (p = 0.042). On multivariate regression, severe disability was associated with a lower odds of favorable case outcome (OR 0.21, p = 0.023), while older plaintiff age (> 65 years) predicted higher odds of favorable outcome (OR 5.75, p = 0.047). For 60 cases resulting in indemnity payment, higher payments were associated on univariate analysis with neurosurgeon defendants (ß-coefficient = 2.33, p = 0.017), whether the plaintiff underwent surgery (ß-coefficient = 2.11, p = 0.012), and the plaintiff experiencing severe disability (ß-coefficient = 4.30, p = 0.005). Following multivariate regression, only medical outcome was predictive of increased indemnity payments, including moderate disability (ß-coefficient = 4.98, p = 0.007), severe disability (ß-coefficient = 6.96, p = 0.001), and death (ß-coefficient = 3.23, p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgeons were the most common defendants for brain tumor malpractice litigation, averaging more than $3 million per claim paid. Older plaintiff age was associated with case outcome in favor of the physician. Additionally, medical outcome was predictive of both case outcome and indemnity payment amount.