Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. This review aims to identify and describe different CAQ systems for colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS based on three blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: Colonoscopy, Competence assessment, and Automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by two reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). RESULTS: 12,575 studies were identified, 6,831 remained after removal of duplicates, and 6,806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving thirteen studies for final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: Withdrawal speedometer (seven studies), Scope movement analysis (three studies), Effective withdrawal time (one study), Fold examination quality (one study), and Visual gaze pattern (one study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and two studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI 15.2 points, maximum 18 points). CONCLUSIONS: Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to ADR. Only five studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible due to the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted.

Using neuroimaging to assess brain activity and areas associated with surgical skills: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical skills acquisition is under continuous development due to the emergence of new technologies, and there is a need for assessment tools to develop along with these. A range of neuroimaging modalities has been used to map the functional activation of brain networks while surgeons acquire novel surgical skills. These have been proposed as a method to provide a deeper understanding of surgical expertise and offer new possibilities for the personalized training of future surgeons. With studies differing in modalities, outcomes, and surgical skills there is a need for a systematic review of the evidence. This systematic review aims to summarize the current knowledge on the topic and evaluate the potential use of neuroimaging in surgical education. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of neuroimaging studies that mapped functional brain activation while surgeons with different levels of expertise learned and performed technical and non-technical surgical tasks. We included all studies published before July 1st, 2023, in MEDLINE, EMBASE and WEB OF SCIENCE. RESULTS: 38 task-based brain mapping studies were identified, consisting of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and observational cohort or cross-sectional studies. The studies employed a wide range of brain mapping modalities, including electroencephalography, functional magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and functional near-infrared spectroscopy, activating brain areas involved in the execution and sensorimotor or cognitive control of surgical skills, especially the prefrontal cortex, supplementary motor area, and primary motor area, showing significant changes between novices and experts. CONCLUSION: Functional neuroimaging can reveal how task-related brain activity reflects technical and non-technical surgical skills. The existing body of work highlights the potential of neuroimaging to link task-related brain activity patterns with the individual level of competency or improvement in performance after training surgical skills. More research is needed to establish its validity and usefulness as an assessment tool.

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.

Developing a phantom for simulating robotic-assisted complete mesocolic excision using 3D printing and medical imaging.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted complete mesocolic excision is an advanced procedure mainly because of the great variability in anatomy. Phantoms can be used for simulation-based training and assessment of competency when learning new surgical procedures. However, no phantoms for robotic complete mesocolic excision have previously been described. This study aimed to develop an anatomically true-to-life phantom, which can be used for training with a robotic system situated in the clinical setting and can be used for the assessment of surgical competency. METHODS: Established pathology and surgical assessment tools for complete mesocolic excision and specimens were used for the phantom development. Each assessment item was translated into an engineering development task and evaluated for relevance. Anatomical realism was obtained by extracting relevant organs from preoperative patient scans and 3D printing casting moulds for each organ. Each element of the phantom was evaluated by two experienced complete mesocolic excision surgeons without influencing each other's answers and their feedback was used in an iterative process of prototype development and testing. RESULTS: It was possible to integrate 35 out of 48 procedure-specific items from the surgical assessment tool and all elements from the pathological evaluation tool. By adding fluorophores to the mesocolic tissue, we developed an easy way to assess the integrity of the mesocolon using ultraviolet light. The phantom was built using silicone, is easy to store, and can be used in robotic systems designated for patient procedures as it does not contain animal-derived parts. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed phantom could be used for training and competency assessment for robotic-assisted complete mesocolic excision surgery in a simulated setting.

Variable practice is superior to self-directed training for laparoscopic simulator training: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Mastering laparoscopy is challenging-it requires specific psychomotor skills which are difficult to obtain in the operating room without potentially compromising patient safety. Proficiency-based training programs using virtual reality simulators allow novices to practice and develop their skills in a patient-safe learning environment. Variable practice leads to stronger retention and skills transfer in a non-surgical setting. The objective of this trial was to investigate if variable practice was superior to self-directed training. METHODS: A randomized trial where participants (n = 36) were randomized to proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training of basic skills using either variable practice or self-directed training, followed by a transfer test with proficiency-based training on a procedural task (a salpingectomy). All participants returned after a period of 3-5 weeks to perform a retention test. RESULTS: The mean time to proficiency for the basic skills tasks were 119 min (SD: 93) for the variable practice group versus 182 min (SD: 46) for the self-directed training group (p = 0.015). The time to reach proficiency during the transfer test was 103 min (SD: 57) versus 183 min (SD: 64) for the variable practice group versus the self-directed training group, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean time to proficiency for the retention test was 51 min (SD: 26) and 109 min (SD: 53) for the variable practice group and self-directed training group, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Variable practice is superior to self-directed training for proficiency-based laparoscopic training. With variable time to practice proficiency is reduced, there is higher transfer to a procedural task, and retention is improved.

Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendectomy- a systematic review.

AIM: There is currently an increased focus on competency-based training, in which training and assessment play a crucial role. The aim of this systematic review is to create an overview of hands-on training methods and assessment tools for appendectomy and colon and rectal surgery procedures using either an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach. METHOD: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the last search on 9 March 2023. All published papers describing hands-on training, evaluation of performance data and development of assessment tools were eligible. The quality of studies and the validity evidence of assessment tools are reported. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were identified. Laparoscopic assessment tools are abundant, but the literature still lacks good-quality assessment tools for open appendectomy, robotic colectomy and open rectal surgery. Overall, there is a lack of discussion regarding the establishment of pass/fail standards and the consequences of assessment. Virtual reality simulation is used more for appendectomy than colorectal procedures. Only a few of the studies investigating training were of acceptable quality. There is a need for high-quality studies in open and robotic-assisted colon surgery and all approaches to rectal surgery. CONCLUSION: This review provides an overview of current training methods and assessment tools and identifies where more research is needed based on the quality of the studies and the current validity evidence.

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.

No difference between using short and long intervals for distributed proficiency-based laparoscopy simulator training: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based training is increasingly used to acquire basic laparoscopic skills. Multiple factors can influence training, e.g., distributed practice is superior to massed practice in terms of efficiency. However, the optimal interval between training sessions is unclear. The objective of this trial was to investigate if shorter intervals between sessions are more efficient than longer intervals during proficiency-based laparoscopy simulator training. METHODS: A randomized simulation-based trial where medical students (n = 39) were randomized to proficiency-based training with either 1-2 days (intervention group) or 6-8 days (control group) between training sessions. Both groups practiced a series of basic tasks and a procedural module until proficiency level on the LapSim® simulator. Both groups were given instructor feedback upon request. After reaching proficiency, participants were invited back for a retention test 3-5 weeks later and practiced the same tasks to proficiency again. RESULTS: The mean time to reach proficiency during training was 291 (SD 89) and 299 (SD 89) min in the intervention and control group, respectively (p = 0.81). During the retention test, the mean time to reach proficiency was 94 (SD 53) and 96 (SD 39) minutes in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p = 0.91). CONCLUSION: We found no difference whether practicing with shorter intervals or longer intervals between training sessions when examining time to proficiency or retention.

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.

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.

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.

Competency assessment for the Versius surgical robot: a validity investigation study of a virtual reality simulator-based test.

BACKGROUND: When introducing new equipment like robotic surgical systems, it is essential to ensure that surgeons have the basic skills before operating on patients. The objective was to investigate the validity evidence for a competency-based test for basic robotic surgical skills using the Versius® trainer. METHODS: We recruited medical students, residents, and surgeons which were classified based on data on clinical experience with the Versius system as either novices (0 min), intermediates (1-1000 min), or experienced (> 1000 min). All participants completed three rounds of eight basic exercises on the Versius trainer, where the first was used for familiarization and the final two for data analysis. The simulator automatically recorded data. Validity evidence was summarized using Messick's framework, and the contrasting groups' standard-setting method was used to define pass/fail levels. RESULTS: 40 participants completed the three rounds of exercises. The discriminatory abilities of all parameters were tested, and five exercises including relevant parameters were selected to be part of the final test. 26 of 30 parameters could differentiate between novices and experienced surgeons but none of the parameters could discriminate between the intermediate and experienced surgeons. Test-retest reliability analysis using Pearson's r or Spearman's rho showed only 13 of 30 parameters had moderate or higher reliability. Non-compensatory pass/fail levels were defined for each exercise and showed that all novices failed all the exercises and that most experienced surgeons either passed or nearly passed all five exercises. CONCLUSION: We identified relevant parameters for five exercises that could be used to assess basic robotic skills for the Versius robotic system and defined a credible pass/fail level. This is the first step in developing a proficiency-based training program for the Versius system.

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.

Acquisition and usage of robotic surgical data for machine learning analysis.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has led to the need for new methods of assessing whether new surgeons are qualified to perform RAS, without the resource-demanding process of having expert surgeons do the assessment. Computer-based automation and artificial intelligence (AI) are seen as promising alternatives to expert-based surgical assessment. However, no standard protocols or methods for preparing data and implementing AI are available for clinicians. This may be among the reasons for the impediment to the use of AI in the clinical setting. METHOD: We tested our method on porcine models with both the da Vinci Si and the da Vinci Xi. We sought to capture raw video data from the surgical robots and 3D movement data from the surgeons and prepared the data for the use in AI by a structured guide to acquire and prepare video data using the following steps: 'Capturing image data from the surgical robot', 'Extracting event data', 'Capturing movement data of the surgeon', 'Annotation of image data'. RESULTS: 15 participant (11 novices and 4 experienced) performed 10 different intraabdominal RAS procedures. Using this method we captured 188 videos (94 from the surgical robot, and 94 corresponding movement videos of the surgeons' arms and hands). Event data, movement data, and labels were extracted from the raw material and prepared for use in AI. CONCLUSION: With our described methods, we could collect, prepare, and annotate images, events, and motion data from surgical robotic systems in preparation for its use in AI.

Preparing for Reality: A Randomized Trial on Immersive Virtual Reality for Bronchoscopy Training.

BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopy is an essential procedure in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary diseases. However, the literature suggests that distractions affect the quality of bronchoscopy and affect inexperienced doctors more than experienced. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was as follows: does simulation-based bronchoscopy training with immersive virtual reality (iVR) improve the doctors' ability to handle distractions and thereby increase the quality, measured in procedure time, structured progression score, diagnostic completeness (%), and hand motor movements of a diagnostic bronchoscopy in a simulated scenario. Exploratory outcomes were heart rate variability and a cognitive load questionnaire (Surg-TLX). METHODS: Participants were randomized. The intervention group practiced in an iVR environment with a head-mounted display (HMD) while using the bronchoscopy simulator, while the control group trained without the HMD. Both groups were tested in the iVR environment using a scenario with distractions. RESULTS: 34 participants completed the trial. The intervention group scored significantly higher in diagnostic completeness (100 i.q.r. 100-100 vs. 94 i.q.r. 89-100, p value = 0.03) and structured progress (16 i.q.r. 15-18 vs. 12 i.q.r. 11-15, p value 0.03) but not in procedure time (367 s standard deviation [SD] 149 vs. 445 s SD 219, p value = 0.06) or hand motor movements (-1.02 i.q.r. -1.03-[-1.02] versus -0.98 i.q.r. -1.02-[-0.98], p value = 0.27). The control group had a tendency toward a lower heart rate variability (5.76 i.q.r. 3.77-9.06 vs. 4.12 i.q.r. 2.68-6.27, p = 0.25). There was no significant difference in total Surg-TLX points between the two groups. CONCLUSION: iVR simulation training increases the quality of diagnostic bronchoscopy in a simulated scenario with distractions compared with conventional simulation-based training.

Consensus on technical procedures for simulation-based training in thoracic surgery: an international needs assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritize technical procedures for simulation-based training to be integrated into the thoracic surgical curriculum. METHODS: A 3-round Delphi survey was conducted from February 2022 to June 2022 among 34 key opinion leaders in thoracic surgery from 14 countries worldwide. The 1st round was a brainstorming phase to identify technical procedures that a newly qualified thoracic surgeon should be able to perform. All the suggested procedures were categorized, qualitatively analysed and sent to the 2nd round. The second round investigated: the frequency of the identified procedure at each institution, the number of thoracic surgeons that should be able to perform these procedures, the degree of risk to the patient if the procedure is performed by a non-competent thoracic surgeon and the feasibility of simulation-based education. In the 3rd round, elimination and re-ranking of the procedures from the 2nd round were performed. RESULTS: Response rates in the 3 iterative rounds were 80% (28 out of 34), 89% (25 out of 28) and 100% (25 out of 25) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round, respectively. Seventeen technical procedures were included for simulation-based training in the final prioritized list. The top 5 procedures were Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy, VATS segmentectomy, VATS mediastinal lymph node dissection, diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery port placement, robotic-assisted thoracic surgery docking and undocking. CONCLUSIONS: The prioritized list of procedures represents a consensus of key thoracic surgeons worldwide. These procedures are suitable for simulation-based training and should be integrated in the thoracic surgical curriculum.

Haptic simulators accelerate laparoscopic simulator training, but skills are not transferable to a non-haptic simulator: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy requires specific psychomotor skills and can be challenging to learn. Most proficiency-based laparoscopic training programs have used non-haptic virtual reality simulators; however, haptic simulators can provide the tactile sensations that the surgeon would experience in the operating room. The objective was to investigate the effect of adding haptic simulators to a proficiency-based laparoscopy training program. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was designed where residents (n = 36) were randomized to proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training using haptic or non-haptic simulators. Subsequently, participants from the haptic group completed a follow-up test, where they had to reach proficiency again using the non-haptic simulator. Participants from the non-haptic group returned to train until reaching proficiency again using the non-haptic simulator. RESULTS: Mean completion times during the intervention were 120 min (SD 38.7 min) and 183 min (SD 66.3 min) for the haptic group and the non-haptic group, respectively (p = 0.001). The mean times to proficiency during the follow-up test were 107 min (SD 41.0 min) and 58 min (SD 23.7 min) for the haptic and the non-haptic group, respectively (p < 0.001). The haptic group was not faster to reach proficiency in the follow-up test than during the intervention (p = 0.22). In contrast, the non-haptic group reached the required proficiency level significantly faster in the follow-up test (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Haptic virtual reality simulators reduce the time to reach proficiency compared to non-haptic simulators. However, the acquired skills are not transferable to the conventional non-haptic setting.

Identifying curriculum content for operating room nurses involved in robotic-assisted surgery: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no generally accepted curriculum for operating room nurses (OR nurses) working with robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) exists. OR nurses working with RAS require different competencies than regular OR nurses, e.g. knowledge of the robotic system and equipment and specific emergency undocking procedures. The objective of this study was to identify learning goals for a curriculum for OR nurses working with RAS and to investigate which learning methods should be used. METHODS: A three-round Delphi approach, with an additional survey, was used in this study. Four OR nurses from every department in gynecology, urology, and surgical gastroenterology doing RAS in Denmark were invited to participate. RESULTS: The response rates were 93%, 81%, and 79%, respectively, in the three rounds of the Delphi survey and 68% in the additional survey. After the processing of data, a list of 57 learning goals, sorted under 11 domains, was produced. 41 learning goals were rated Relevant, Very relevant, or Essential spread over 10 of the 11 domains. The top 3 learning goals rated as Essential: Identify the most common injuries related to patient positioning during robotic-assisted surgery and know how to avoid them, Connect, calibrate and handle the scope, Perform an emergency undocking procedure. The panel rated Supervised training during surgery on patients as the most relevant learning method, followed by Dry lab and Team training. CONCLUSIONS: The learning goals identified in this study, can be used as the basis for a curriculum for OR nurses working with RAS. During the processing, it became clear that there is a need to further investigate issues such as communication challenges, awareness of emergency procedures, and differences in the skills required depending on the role of the RAS nurse.