Robotic Thoracic Surgery Training for Residency Programs: A Position Paper for an Educational Curriculum.

OBJECTIVE: Robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly being used in thoracic surgery. Currently, the Integrated Thoracic Surgery Residency Program lacks a standardized curriculum or requirement for training residents in robotic-assisted thoracic surgery. In most circumstances, because of the lack of formal residency training in robotic surgery, hospitals are requiring additional training, mentorship, and formal proctoring of cases before granting credentials to perform robotic-assisted surgery. Therefore, there is necessity for residents in Integrated Thoracic Surgery Residency Program to have early exposure and formal training on the robotic platform. We propose a curriculum that can be incorporated into such programs that would satisfy both training needs and hospital credential requirements. METHODS: We surveyed all 26 Integrated Thoracic Surgery Residency Program Directors in the United States. We also performed a PubMed literature search using the key word "robotic surgery training curriculum." We reviewed various robotic surgery training curricula and evaluation tools used by urology, obstetrics gynecology, and general surgery training programs. We then designed a proposed curriculum geared toward thoracic Integrated Thoracic Surgery Residency Program adopted from our credentialing experience, literature review, and survey consensus. RESULTS: Of the 26 programs surveyed, we received 17 responses. Most Integrated Thoracic Surgery Residency Program directors believe that it is important to introduce robotic surgery training during residency. Our proposed curriculum is integrated during postgraduate years 2 to 6. In the preclinical stage postgraduate years 2 to 3, residents are required to complete introductory online modules, virtual reality simulator training, and in-house workshops. During clinical stage (postgraduate years 4-6), the resident will serve as a supervised bedside assistant and progress to a console surgeon. Each case will have defined steps that the resident must demonstrate competency. Evaluation will be based on standardized guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion and utilization of robotic assistance in thoracic surgery have increased. Our proposed curriculum aims to enable Integrated Thoracic Surgery Residency Program residents to achieve competency in robotic-assisted thoracic surgery and to facilitate the acquirement of hospital privileges when they enter practice.

Robotically Assisted Thoracic Surgery: Proposed Guidelines for Privileging and Credentialing.

OBJECTIVE: Increased use of robotically assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) necessitates effective credentialing guidelines to ensure safe outcomes. We provide a stepwise algorithm for granting privileges and credentials in RATS. This algorithm reflects graduated responsibility and complexity of the surgical procedures performed. Furthermore, it takes into account volume, outcomes, surgeon's competency, and appropriateness of robot usage. METHODS: We performed a literature review for available strategies to grant privileges and credentials for implementing robotic surgery. The following terms were queried: robot, robotic, surgery, and credentialing. We provide this algorithm on the basis of review of the literature, our institutional experience, and the experience of other medical centers around the United States. RESULTS: Currently, two pathways for robotic training exist: residency and nonresidency-trained. In the United Sates, Joint Commission: Accreditation, Health Care, Certification requires hospitals to credential and privilege physicians on their medical staff. In the proposed algorithm, a credentialing designee oversees and reviews all requests. Residency-trained surgeons must fulfill 20 cases with program directors' attestation to obtain full privileges. Nonresidency-trained surgeons are required to fulfill simulation, didactics including online modules, wet laboratories (cadaver or animal), and observation of at least two cases before provisional privileges can be granted. A minimum number of cases (10 per year) are required to maintain privileges. All procedures are monitored via departmental QA/QI committee review. Investigational uses of the robot require institutional review board approval, and complex operations may require additional proctoring and QA/QI review. CONCLUSIONS: Safety concerns with the introduction of novel and complex technologies such as RATS must be paramount. Our algorithm takes into consideration appropriate use and serves as a basic guideline for institutions that wish to implement a RATS program.

Oncological resection of lung cancer invading the aortic arch In full thickness using a non-fenestrated endograft.

T4 lung cancer invading the full thickness of the aortic arch was completely removed in a 78-year-old lady using a non-fenestrated endograft closing the left subclavian artery origin without performing surgical revascularization. Left thoracotomy and upper lobectomy with resection of superior segment of the lower lobe and full thickness of the infiltrated aorta was performed without covering the aortic defect. The margins of the specimen were free of tumor. The patient survived 32 months. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:412-415. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Impact of Robotic Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on In-Hospital Narcotic Use: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare narcotic use in the perioperative hospital stay as a measure of pain in patients undergoing robotic versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Propensity score matching of patients undergoing robotically assisted CABG and conventional CABG over a period of 5 years was performed. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify the total amount of narcotics used by both groups calculated as morphine equivalent dosing (MED). RESULTS: From 2007 to 2012, 154 patients underwent robotic CABG, and 1660 underwent conventional CABG. Propensity matching resulted in 142 patients in each group. Patients undergoing robotic CABG received less blood transfusion, were more frequently extubated in the operating room, and had a shorter length of stay. The robotic group had a lower MED than the conventional group as defined by the primary end point [181 (11) vs 251 (8)]. If intraoperative narcotic use was eliminated, there was no difference in MED from postoperative days 0 to 3. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing robotic CABG use fewer narcotics over the first three hospital days than patients undergoing conventional CABG. The surrogate of narcotics use for postoperative pain shows that the minithoracotomy of robotic CABG may result in either less or equivalent pain than the sternotomy of conventional CABG.