Training novice robot surgeons: Proctoring provides same results as simulator-generated guidance.

To understand the influence of proctored guidance versus simulator generated guidance (SGG) on the acquisition dexterity skills in novice surgeons learning RAS (robot assisted surgery). Prospective non-blinded 3-arm randomised controlled trial (RTC). Exclusion criteria: previous experience in RAS or robotic surgery simulation. The participants were assigned to three different intervention groups and received a different form of guidance: (1) proctored guidance, (2) simulator generated guidance, (3) no guidance, during training on virtual reality (VR) simulator. All participants were asked to complete multiple questionnaires. The training was the same in all groups with the exception of the intervention part. Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands. A total of 70 Dutch medical students, PhD-students, and surgical residents were included in the study. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Overall, all the participants showed a significant improvement in their dexterity skills after the training. There was no significant difference in the improvement of surgical skills between the three different intervention groups. The proctored guidance group reported a higher participant satisfaction compared to the simulator-generated guidance group, which could indicate a higher motivation to continue the training. This study showed that novice surgeons. Significantly increase their dexterity skills in RAS after a short time of practicing on simulator. The lack of difference in results between the intervention groups could indicate there is a limited impact of "human proctoring" on dexterity skills during surgical simulation training. Since there is no difference between the intervention groups the exposure alone of novice surgeons to the robotic surgery simulator could possibly be sufficient to achieve a significant improvement of dexterity skills during the initial steps of RAS learning.

Structured robot-assisted surgery training curriculum for residents in Urology and impact on future surgical activity.

To gain insight into the availability of training for robot assisted surgery (RAS) and the possibility to perform RAS during Dutch residency curriculum and to analyze the effects on surgical skills by the introduction of an advanced course in RAS for residents. A combination of a validated snap shot survey and a prospective cohort study. Structured advanced RAS training including virtual reality (VR) simulation, dry and wet lab facility at ORSI academy (Belgium). A snap-shot survey has been sent to all the residents and specialists in Urology graduated during the years 2017-2020 in Netherlands. Among residents, only last year residents (5th and 6th year) have been considered for the RAS training. Although most of the residents (88.2%) and young urologists (95%) were asked to follow a basic training or meet basic requirements before starting RAS, the requirements set by the educators were different from center to center. Some of them were required to attend only an online course on RAS, whereas others were asked to achieve threshold scores at VR simulator and participate in a standardized course at a training institute. The attendance to a structured advanced course in RAS showed a significant increase in surgical skills. Our study shows residents in urology are allowed to perform RAS during their residency though the criteria for starting RAS differ significantly amongst the teaching hospitals. To guarantee a basic level of skills and knowledge a structured, (multi-step) training and certification program for RAS should be implemented.

Linking surgical skills to postoperative outcomes: a Delphi study on the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an assessment instrument for the evaluation of surgical videos to elucidate the association between surgical skills and postoperative outcomes after a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). DESIGN: A Delphi study consisting of two consecutive online surveys and a consensus group meeting. SETTING: Urology departments of general, teaching and university hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: All Dutch urologists with a specialization in RARP. RESULTS: Of 18 invited experts, 12 (67%) participated in the first online survey. In the second round, 9 of the 18 invited experts participated (50%). The Delphi meeting was attended by 5 of the 18 (27%) invited experts. The panel identified seven surgical steps with a possible association to postoperative outcomes. The experts also expected an association between adverse postoperative outcomes and the frequency of camera removals, the number of stitches placed, the amount of bleeding, and the extent of coagulation. These factors were incorporated into an assessment instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Experts in the field of RARP achieved consensus on 7 surgical steps and 4 aspects of the RARP procedure that may be related to adverse postoperative outcomes. The resulting assessment instrument will be tested in future research to determine its validity.