How experienced robotic nurses adapt to the Hugo™ RAS system.

No studies have reported on the impact at team level of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS system. We described the work patterns and learning curves of an experienced robotic nurse team adapting to the new robotic system. We prospectively recorded the robotic nurse team's preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative tasks on the first 30 robotic procedures performed. The data were descriptively analyzed, and Gantt Charts were created for a timeline overview of the work patterns. We compared the operative times between the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS and the Davinci® system. The preoperative phase seemed to improve with a median time of 94 min (IQR 81-107). After 20 surgeries, the work pattern became more consistent where the scrub and circulating nurses worked simultaneously. There was no noticeable improvement for the perioperative and postoperative phases with a stable median time of 170 min (IQR 135-189) and 26 min (IQR 22-31). We found that the work pattern seemed to stabilize after 20 surgeries but with a continued decrease in preoperative time without a learning curve plateau. The robotic nurse team suffered from few breaks and long working hours because only a few nurses at our facility were trained in the Hugo™ system.

Surgical gestures can be used to assess surgical competence in robot-assisted surgery : A validity investigating study of simulated RARP.

To collect validity evidence for the assessment of surgical competence through the classification of general surgical gestures for a simulated robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We used 165 video recordings of novice and experienced RARP surgeons performing three parts of the RARP procedure on the RobotiX Mentor. We annotated the surgical tasks with different surgical gestures: dissection, hemostatic control, application of clips, needle handling, and suturing. The gestures were analyzed using idle time (periods with minimal instrument movements) and active time (whenever a surgical gesture was annotated). The distribution of surgical gestures was described using a one-dimensional heat map, snail tracks. All surgeons had a similar percentage of idle time but novices had longer phases of idle time (mean time: 21 vs. 15 s, p < 0.001). Novices used a higher total number of surgical gestures (number of phases: 45 vs. 35, p < 0.001) and each phase was longer compared with those of the experienced surgeons (mean time: 10 vs. 8 s, p < 0.001). There was a different pattern of gestures between novices and experienced surgeons as seen by a different distribution of the phases. General surgical gestures can be used to assess surgical competence in simulated RARP and can be displayed as a visual tool to show how performance is improving. The established pass/fail level may be used to ensure the competence of the residents before proceeding with supervised real-life surgery. The next step is to investigate if the developed tool can optimize automated feedback during simulator training.

First experience with the Hugo™ robot-assisted surgery system for endometriosis: A descriptive study.

INTRODUCTION: The Medtronic Hugo™ Robot-assisted Surgery (RAS) system was recently approved for clinical use. We explored the safety and feasibility of this system for endometriosis surgery. The primary outcome was safe case completion without major surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≤2) and no conversion to open surgery or laparoscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Surgeries for endometriosis performed at the Department of Gynecology, Rigshospitalet, on the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS system were included. Two experienced robotic surgeons performed all surgeries with their usual robotic team. The variables included were patient demographics, peri- and postoperative data, complications and 30-day readmission rate. We used the IDEAL framework 1/2a for surgical innovation in this descriptive study. RESULTS: The first 12 patients were included. All cases were completed without intraoperative complications or conversion. Four patients experienced Clavien-Dindo grade 1 postoperative complications. No patients were re-admitted within 30 days. Median docking time (17 minutes), console time (87.5 minutes), blood loss (40 mL) and length of hospital stay (1 day) were acceptable compared with previous literature. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, we found the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS system safe and feasible for robot-assisted surgery for endometriosis. The advent of new robotic systems is welcomed to accelerate the development of technology that will advance surgical care for patients across the globe.

Skills transfer from the DaVinci® system to the Hugo™ RAS system.

PURPOSE: Recently, the robotic surgical system, Hugo™ was approved for clinical use. The transfer of skills is important for understanding the implementation of surgical innovation. We explored the transfer of skills from the DaVinci® to the Hugo™ by studying the learning curve and short-term patient outcomes during radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We examined the transfer of skills from one surgeon performing RARP from the first case with the Hugo™ system in April 2022. The surgeon had previously performed > 1000 RARPs using DaVinci®. Perioperative and clinical outcomes were collected for procedures on both Hugo™ and DaVinci®. Patient follow-up time was 3 months. RESULTS: Nineteen Hugo™ cases and 11 DaVinci® cases were recorded. No clinically relevant difference in procedure time was found when transferring to Hugo™. Patients operated using Hugo™ had more contacts postoperatively compared to the DaVinci®, all Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade 1 (53% vs 18%). Three patients from the Hugo™ group were re-admitted within 30 days with catheter malfunction (CD grade 1), infection without a focus (CD grade 2), and ileus due to a hernia in the port hole (CD grade 3b). The 3-month follow-up showed similar results in prostate-specific antigen levels (PSA) and erectile dysfunction between the two robotic systems, but a higher incidence of incontinence was found for the Hugo™. CONCLUSION: We observed that the skills of an experienced robotic surgeon are transferable from DaVinci® to Hugo™ when performing RARP. No obvious benefits were found for using Hugo™ compared to DaVinci® for RARP although this needs confirmatory studies.

Laypersons versus experienced surgeons in assessing simulated robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Feedback is important for surgical trainees but it can be biased and time-consuming. We examined crowd-sourced assessment as an alternative to experienced surgeons' assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We used video recordings (n = 45) of three RARP modules on the RobotiX, Simbionix simulator from a previous study in a blinded comparative assessment study. A group of crowd workers (CWs) and two experienced RARP surgeons (ESs) evaluated all videos with the modified Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Surgery (mGEARS). RESULTS: One hundred forty-nine CWs performed 1490 video ratings. Internal consistency reliability was high (0.94). Inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability were low for CWs (0.29 and 0.39) and moderate for ESs (0.61 and 0.68). In an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test, CWs could not discriminate between the skill level of the surgeons (p = 0.03-0.89), whereas ES could (p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: We found very low agreement between the assessments of CWs and ESs when they assessed robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. As opposed to ESs, CWs could not discriminate between surgical experience using the mGEARS ratings or when asked if they wanted the surgeons to perform their robotic surgery.

Transfer of skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted surgery is today well-implemented in many surgical specialties, but requires another skill set than laparoscopy. Most often, robot-assisted surgery is considered add-on to laparoscopic skills but very little is known about the transfer of skills. The aim of the study was to examine to what extent surgical skills are transferable between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, and Web of Science). Studies investigating transfer of skills between laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery in either a phantom-based, simulation-based, animal model, or clinical setting were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was done using the Medical education research study quality instrument and educational New Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of 15,610 studies identified, 89 studies continued to full-text reading, and 37 studies were included. Four studies were found non-comparable and were left out of the results for the primary outcome. All 33 studies explored transfer from laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery and 17 found a positive transfer whereas 15 did not. Only 11 studies explored transfer from robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopy, of which only three found a positive transfer. CONCLUSION: An almost equal number of publications found a positive transfer and no transfer from laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery. Fewer studies explored the transfer from robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopy. Very little evidence supports that surgeons trained solely in robot-assisted surgery can perform laparoscopy. This must be considered in future training programs as robot-assisted surgery is expected to become the first-in-line modality for many future surgeons.

Comparing Simulator Metrics and Rater Assessment of Laparoscopic Suturing Skills.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing is important to master and competence should be ensured using an optimal method in a simulated environment before proceeding to real operations. The objectives of this study were to gather validity evidence for two tools for assessing laparoscopic intracorporeal knot tying and compare the rater-based assessment of laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing with the assessment based on simulator metrics. METHODS: Twenty-eight novices and 19 experienced surgeons performed four laparoscopic sutures on a Simball Box simulator twice. Two surgeons used the Intracorporeal Suturing Assessment Tool (ISAT) for blinded video rating. RESULTS: Composite Simulator Score (CSS) had higher test-retest reliability than the ISAT. The correlation between the number performed procedures including suturing and ISAT score was 0.51, p<0.001, and 0.59 p<0.001 for CSS. We found an inter-rater reliability (0.72, p<0.001 for test 1 and 0.53 p<0.001 for test 2). The pass/fail rates for ISAT and CSS were similar. CONCLUSION: CSS and ISAT provide similar results for assessing laparoscopic suturing but assess different aspects of performance. Using simulator metrics and raters' assessments in combination should be considered for a more comprehensive evaluation of laparoscopic knot-tying competency.

Medical Students Cannot Assess Robotic Surgeons Performing Radical Prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Medical students have previously been shown to be just as effective for video rating as experts. We want to compare medical students to experienced surgeons as video assessors of simulated robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Video recordings of three RARP modules on the RobotiX (formerly Simbionix) simulator from a previous study were used. Five novice surgeons, five experienced robotic surgeons, and five experienced robotic surgeons in RARP performed a total of 45 video-recorded procedures. The videos were assessed with the modified Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills tool as both full-length and an edited edition that only included the first 5 minutes of the procedure. RESULTS: Fifty medical students and two experienced RARP surgeons (ES) performed a total of 680 video ratings of full-length videos and 5-minute videos (2-9 ratings per video). Medical students and ES showed poor agreement for both full-length videos and 5-minute videos (0.29 and -0.13, respectively). Medical students could not discriminate between the skill level of the surgeons in either full-length videos or 5-minute videos (P = 0.053-0.36 and P = 0.21-0.82), whereas ES could discriminate between novice surgeons and experienced surgeons (full-length, P < 0.001, and 5 minutes, P = 0.007) and intermediate and experienced surgeons (full-length, P = 0.001, and 5 minutes, P = 0.01) in both full-length videos and 5-minute videos. CONCLUSION: We found that medical students cannot be used to assess RARP because they showed poor agreement with the ES rating for both full-length videos and 5-minute videos. Medical students could not discriminate between surgical skill levels.

Validation of a Novel Assessment Tool Identifying Proficiency in Transurethral Bladder Tumor Resection: The OSATURBS Assessment Tool.

Background: Competence in transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURB) is critical in bladder cancer management and should be ensured before independent practice. Objective: To develop an assessment tool for TURB and explore validity evidence in a clinical context. Design, Setting, and Participants: From July 2019 to March 2021, a total of 33 volunteer doctors from three hospitals were included after exemption from the regional ethics committee (REG-008-2018). Participants performed two TURB procedures on patients with bladder tumors. A newly developed assessment tool (Objective Structured Assessment for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumors Skills, OSATURBS) was used for direct observation assessment (DOA), self-assessment (SA), and blinded video assessment (VA). Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's r were calculated for across items internal consistency reliability, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability. Correlation between OSATURBS scores and the operative experience was calculated with Pearson's r and a pass/fail score was established. Differences in assessment scores were explored with paired t-test and independent samples t-test. Results and Limitations: The internal consistency reliability across items Cronbach's alpha was 0.94 (n = 260, p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability was 0.80 (n = 64, p < 0.001). Test-retest correlation was high, r = 0.71 (n = 32, p < 0.001). Relationship with TURB experience was high, r = 0.71 (n = 32, p < 0.001). Pass/fail score was 19 points. DOAs were strongly correlated with video ratings (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) but with a significant social bias with lower scores for inexperienced and higher scores for experienced participants. Participants tended to overestimate their own performances. Conclusions: OSATURBS tool for TURB can be used for assessment of surgical proficiency in the clinical setting. DOA and SA are biased, and blinded VA of TURB performances is advised. Clinical Trials NCT03864302.

Validation of a Novel Simulation-Based Test in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Purpose: To investigate validity evidence for a simulator-based test in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Materials and Methods: The test consisted of three modules on the RobotiX Mentor VR-simulator: Bladder Neck Dissection, Neurovascular Bundle Dissection, and Ureterovesical Anastomosis. Validity evidence was investigated by using Messick's framework by including doctors with different RARP experience: novices (who had assisted for RARP), intermediates (robotic surgeons, but not RARP surgeons), or experienced (RARP surgeons). The simulator metrics were analyzed, and Cronbach's alpha and generalizability theory were used to explore reliability. Intergroup comparisons were done with mixed-model, repeated measurement analysis of variance and the correlation between the number of robotic procedures and the mean test score were examined. A pass/fail score was established by using the contrasting groups' method. Results: Ten novices, 11 intermediates, and 6 experienced RARP surgeons were included. Six metrics could discriminate between groups and showed acceptable internal consistency reliability, Cronbach's alpha = 0.49, p < 0.001. Test-retest reliability was 0.75, 0.85, and 0.90 for one, two, and three repetitions of tests, respectively. Six metrics were combined into a simulator score that could discriminate between all three groups, p = 0.002, p < 0.001, and p = 0.029 for novices vs intermediates, novices vs experienced, and intermediates vs experienced, respectively. Total number of robotic operations and the mean score of the three repetitions were significantly correlated, Pearson's r = 0.74, p < 0.001. Conclusion: This study provides validity evidence for a simulator-based test in RARP. We determined a pass/fail level that can be used to ensure competency before proceeding to supervised clinical training.