Laparoscopic vs robotic inguinal hernia repair: a comparison of learning curves and skill transference in general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on whether laparoscopic experience should be a prerequisite for robotic training. Further, there is limited information on skill transference between laparoscopic and robotic techniques. This study focused on the general surgery residents' learning curve and skill transference within the two minimally invasive platforms. METHODS: General surgery residents were observed during the performance of laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repairs. The recorded data included objective measures (operative time, resident participation indicated by percent active time on console or laparoscopy relative to total case time, number of handoffs between the resident and attending), and subjective evaluations (preceptor and trainee assessments of operative performance) while controlling for case complexity, patient comorbidities, and residents' prior operative experience. Wilcoxon two-sample tests and Pearson Correlation coefficients were used for analysis. RESULTS: Twenty laparoscopic and forty-four robotic cases were observed. Mean operative times were 90 min for robotic and 95 min for laparoscopic cases (P = 0.4590). Residents' active participation time was 66% on the robotic platform and 37% for laparoscopic (P = < 0.0001). On average, hand-offs occurred 9.7 times during robotic cases and 6.3 times during laparoscopic cases (P = 0.0131). The mean number of cases per resident was 5.86 robotic and 1.67 laparoscopic (P = 0.0312). For robotic cases, there was a strong correlation between percent active resident participation and their prior robotic experience (r = 0.78) while there was a weaker correlation with prior laparoscopic experience (r = 0.47). On the other hand, prior robotic experience had minimal correlation with the percent active resident participation in laparoscopic cases (r = 0.12) and a weak correlation with prior laparoscopic experience (r = 0.37). CONCLUSION: The robotic platform may be a more effective teaching tool with a higher degree of entrustability indicated by the higher mean resident participation. We observed a greater degree of skill transference from laparoscopy to the robot, indicated by a higher degree of correlation between the resident's prior laparoscopic experience and the percent console time in robotic cases. There was minimal correlation between residents' prior robotic experience and their participation in laparoscopic cases. Our findings suggest that the learning curve for the robot may be shorter as prior robotic experience had a much stronger association with future robotic performance compared to the association observed in laparoscopy.

The robot doesn't lie: real-life validation of robotic performance metrics.

BACKGROUND: Degree of resident participation in a case is often used as a surrogate marker for operative autonomy, an essential element of surgical resident training. Previous studies have demonstrated a considerable disagreement between the perceptions of attending surgeons and trainees when it comes to estimating operative participation. The Da Vinci Surgical System dual console interface allows machine generated measurements of trainee's active participation, which has the potential to obviate the need for labor intensive direct observation of surgical procedures. However, the robotic metrics require validation. We present a comparison of operative participation as perceived by the resident, faculty, trained research staff observer (gold standard), and robotic machine generated data. METHODS: A total of 28 consecutive robotic inguinal hernia repair procedures were observed by research staff. Operative time, percent active time for the resident, and number of handoffs between the resident and attending were recorded by trained research staff in the operating room and the Da Vinci Surgical System. Attending and resident evaluations of operative performance and perceptions of percent active time for the resident were collected using standardized forms and compared with the research staff observed values and the robot-generated console data. Wilcoxon two-sample tests and Pearson Correlation coefficients statistical analysis were performed. RESULTS: Robotic inguinal hernia repair cases had a mean operative time of 91.3 (30) minutes and an attending-rated mean difficulty of 3.1 (1.26) out of 5. Residents were recorded to be the active surgeon 71.8% (17.7) of the total case time by research staff. There was a strong correlation (r = 0.77) in number of handoffs between faculty and trainee as recorded by the research staff and robot (4.28 (2.01) vs. 5.8 (3.04) respectively). The robotic machine generated data demonstrated the highest degree of association when compared to the gold standard (research staff observed data), with r = 0.98, p < 0.0001. Lower levels of association were seen with resident reported (r = 0.66) perceptions and faculty-reported (r = 0.55) perceptions of resident active operative time. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that robot-generated performance metrics are an extremely accurate and reliable measure of intraoperative resident participation indicated by a very strong correlation with the data recorded by research staff's direct observation of the case. Residents demonstrated a more accurate awareness of their degree of participation compared with faculty surgeons. With high accuracy and ease of use, robotic surgical system performance metrics have the potential to be a valuable tool in surgical training and skill assessment.

General surgery applicant perspectives: Two years of virtual interview experiences and supplemental application impressions.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the unique benefits and challenges the virtual recruitment and interviewing platform had on general surgery residency applicants. METHODS: Applicants who interviewed for a categorical position at our institution during the 2021 and 2022 Match season were contacted to participate in the anonymous online survey focused on applicant behavior related to the virtual interview format. Data were analyzed using chi-square and paired t-tests. RESULTS: A response rate of 56.7 â€‹% (n â€‹= â€‹135) was achieved. Applicants accepted a median of 17 (IQR 13-20) interviews in 2021 and 15 (IQR 11-19) interviews in 2022. More than half (54 â€‹%) of applicants indicated they applied to more programs, and 53 â€‹% accepted more interviews, because of the virtual format. The greatest advantages of the virtual interviews as cited by applicants were saving money (96.3 â€‹%), saving time (49.6 â€‹%), and avoiding travel risks (43.7 â€‹%). The top limitations of virtual interviews were less exposure to current residents and faculty (61.5 â€‹%), to the city or location of the program (58.5 â€‹%), and difficultly comparing programs (57.8 â€‹%). The 2022 Match cycle included use of the supplemental application; however, 85 â€‹% of applicants did not feel that the supplemental improved their overall application. Some applicants (20 â€‹%) who "signaled" programs did not receive an interview offer from any of the programs they signaled. CONCLUSION: The transition to virtual interviews saved applicants time and money but limited their exposure. Future efforts to maintain virtual interviews will need to be balanced against the intangible benefit of human interaction and observing a program's culture.

General surgery applicants report the impact of virtual interviews on their rank list and match.

Purpose: The transition to an all-virtual application cycle for General Surgery Match 2021 significantly altered interview day and the interactions of applicants with residency programs. We sought to evaluate the impact of a virtual match cycle on applicants' rank list and Match results. Methods: We surveyed applicants who were offered an interview for a categorical general surgery residency position at our institution during the 2021 match season. Voluntary anonymous surveys were sent after the rank list deadline and again after the Match. Results: Out of 108 interviewees, 43 completed the survey (40%). Median age was 26, and 61% of respondents were male and 82% white, which skewed from our diverse interview pool. They completed a median of 17 interviews. 69% felt they had sufficient exposure to make their rank list, and this group reached statistically significant higher confidence in their decisions when compared with those who endorsed not having enough exposure to the residency programs (58% vs 42%, p = 0.02). Applicants cited the most influential interview day factors to be their interview with faculty and the virtual social with residents. Least important was their ability to assess the hospital facility. Among seven different program factors, comradery between faculty and residents (31%) and perceived happiness of the residents (18.6%) were most often selected most influential. Only 56% reported ranking all programs at which they interviewed. After submitting their rank list, 59% of applicants stated they had not visited the city of their top ranked program; however, post-match surveys revealed only 44% matched to a program in a city unknown to them. 57% of applicants stated they reached out to their top choice program with additional questions, but only 47% matched at one of those institutions. Conclusions: Even in the constraints of the virtual interviews, most applicants felt they had sufficient exposure to programs to make their rank list. Applicants were willing to highly rank cities they had never visited and to reach out to programs but were ultimately less successful matching at those programs. Understanding what factors and communications most impact applicants and programs may lead to a more successful Match. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44186-022-00071-8.