Baseline Laparoscopic Skill May Predict Baseline Robotic Skill and Early Robotic Surgery Learning Curve

How long do we need to reach sufficient expertise with the avatera® robotic system?

PURPOSE

To investigate the learning curve in four basic surgical skills in laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, and evaluate the approximate time needed to reach sufficient expertise in performing these tasks with the avatera® system.

METHODS

Twenty urology residents with no previous experience in dry-lab and robotic surgery were asked to complete four basic laparoscopic tasks (peg transfer, circle cutting, needle guidance, and suturing) laparoscopically and robotically. All participants were asked to complete the tasks first after watching the Uroweb educational material and, second, after undertaking a 2-hour training in robotic and laparoscopic dry-lab. Thereafter, all trainees continued to undertake 2-hour training programs until being able to complete the tasks with the avatera® robot at the desired time. Paired t test and one-way ANOVA test were used to analyze time differences between the groups.

RESULTS

Time needed to complete all tasks either robotically or laparoscopically was significantly less in the second compared to the first attempt for all Groups in each Task. In the robotic dry-lab, time needed to complete the tasks was significantly less than in the laparoscopic dry-lab. A significant effect of previous laparoscopic experience of the participants on the training time needed to achieve most of the goal times was detected.

CONCLUSION

The results of the study highlight the role of previous laparoscopic experience in the training time needed to achieve the performance time goals and demonstrate that the learning curve of basic surgical skills using the avatera® system is steeper than the laparoscopic one.

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.

Laparoscopic but not open surgical skills can be transferred to robot-assisted surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With an increase in robot-assisted surgery across all specialties, adequate training and credentialing strategies need to be identified to ensure patients safety. The meta-analysis assesses the transferability of technical surgical skills between laparoscopic surgery, open surgery, and robot-assisted surgery.

DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. Outcomes were categorized into time, process, product, and composite outcome measures and pooled separately using Hedges'g (standardized mean difference [SMD]). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the effect of study design, virtual reality platforms and task difficulty.

RESULTS

Out of 14,120 screened studies, 30 were included in the qualitative synthesis and 26 in the quantitative synthesis. Technical surgical skill transfer was demonstrated from laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery (composite: SMD 0.40, 95%-confidence interval [CI] [0.19; 0.62], time: SMD 0.62, CI [0.33; 0.91]) and vice versa (composite: SMD 0.66, CI [0.33; 0.99], time [basic skills]: SMD 0.36, CI [0.01; 0.72]). No skill transfer was seen from open to robot-assisted surgery with limited available data.

CONCLUSION

Technical surgical skills can be transferred from laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery and vice versa. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgical skills training and credentialing should not be regarded separately, but a reasonable combination could shorten overall training times and increase efficiency. Previous experience in open surgery should not be considered as an imperative prerequisite for training in robot-assisted surgery. Recommendations for studies assessing skill transfer are proposed to increase comparability and significance of future studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42018104507.

Skill transference and learning curves in novice learners: a randomized comparison of robotic and laparoscopic platforms

BACKGROUND

While well-established protocols direct laparoscopic training, there remains a relative paucity of guidelines for robotic education. Furthermore, it is unknown how exposure to one platform influences trainees' proficiency in the other. This study aimed to compare and quantify (1) learning curves and (2) transference of skill between the two modalities in novice learners.

METHODS

Thirty pre-clinical medical students were randomized into two groups. One group performed the peg-transfer task using the robot first, followed by laparoscopy, while the other group performed the same task laparoscopically first. Participants completed five repetitions with each methodology. Participants were timed and errors were recorded. We hypothesized that laparoscopic experience with the peg-transfer task would assist in completing the task robotically, and there would be a higher degree of skill transference from the laparoscopic to robotic platform.

RESULTS

Peg-transfer task completion was consistently faster and more accurate with the robot compared to laparoscopy (p < 0.01). We observed a positive transference of skill from the laparoscopic to robotic platform. However, exposure to the robot-hindered students' ability to perform the task laparoscopically, evidenced by significantly increased time and errors when compared with baseline laparoscopic performance (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

These findings encourage surgical residency programs to treat robotic and laparoscopic training as discrete entities and consider their unique learning curves and skill transference when designing an efficient curriculum. While these effects are observed in novices, future directions include uncovering the trends among resident trainees and practicing surgeons.

Transfer of open and laparoscopic skills to robotic surgery: a systematic review

Due to its advantages over open surgery and conventional laparoscopy, uptake of robot-assisted surgery has rapidly increased. It is important to know whether the existing open or laparoscopic skills of robotic novices shorten the robotic surgery learning curve, potentially reducing the amount of training required. This systematic review aims to assess psychomotor skill transfer to the robot in clinical and simulated settings. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were systematically searched in accordance with PRISMA guidelines from inception to August 2021 alongside website searching and citation chaining. Article screening, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Outcomes included simulator performance metrics or in the case of clinical studies, peri- and post-operative metrics. Twenty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria. All studies were judged to be at high or moderate overall risk of bias. Results were narratively synthesised due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Two of the three studies assessing open surgical skill transfer found evidence of successful skill transfer while nine of twenty-seven studies evaluating laparoscopic skill transfer found no evidence. Skill transfer from both modalities is most apparent when advanced robotic tasks are performed in the initial phase of the learning curve but quality and methodological limitations of the existing literature prevent definitive conclusions. The impact of incorporating laparoscopic simulation into robotic training curricula and on the cost effectiveness of training should be investigated.

Training residents in robotic thoracic surgery

With growing integration of robotic technology in thoracic surgery, the need for structured training has never been greater with trainees expressing desire for additional experience. Determining the ideal education program is challenging as the collective experience is still relatively early and growing with many experienced surgeons still becoming facile with the platform. Understanding differences between robotic and thoracoscopic approaches including lung retraction and dissection, use of carbon dioxide insufflation, and lack of tactile feedback serves as the foundation for building a skillset. Currently, there is no standard accepted curriculum for residents. Inclusion of these trainees in structured programs has been shown to be safe with equivalent patient outcomes. There are multiple curricula under development, all of which incorporate use of simulation technology, dual console, and clear, graduated responsibilities within operations. These include introduction to the robotic system prior to progressing to bedside assistance and finally to time as console surgeon. The importance of clear definition of training milestones with deliberate graduation to more complex tasks once competency has been demonstrated cannot be overstated. It is crucial for surgeons practicing robotic surgery to make efforts to further the training of residents, but there has not been any perfect and suitable program identified yet.

Cost, training and simulation models for robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric urology

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic procedures in pediatric urology have been shown to be safe and effective over the last number of years. Coupled with this is the technological trend to provide minimally invasive options for even the most complex pediatric patients. Whilst robotic platforms continue to try to demonstrate superior patient outcomes in adults with mixed results, the utilization of robotic platforms for pediatric urology is increasing.

METHODS

A review of the current literature was undertaken to assess the evidence for training models and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted pediatric urology.

CONCLUSIONS

A growing body of evidence in this field has demonstrated that robotic platforms are safe and effective in children and can provide additional reconstructive benefits due to motion scaling, magnification, stereoscopic views, instrument dexterity and tremor reduction. The main drawbacks remain the financial implications associated with this platform through purchase, maintenance, and disposable costs. This review addresses some of the addresses issues pertaining to cost, training and simulation for robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric urology.

Implementing assessments of robot-assisted technical skill in urological education: a systematic review and synthesis of the validity evidence

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and synthesise the validity evidence supporting intraoperative and simulation-based assessments of technical skill in urological robot-assisted surgery (RAS), and make evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of these assessments in urological training.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search of the Medline, PsycINFO and Embase databases was performed. Articles using technical skill and simulation-based assessments in RAS were abstracted. Only studies involving urology trainees or faculty were included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

Multiple tools for the assessment of technical robotic skill have been published, with mixed sources of validity evidence to support their use. These evaluations have been used in both the ex vivo and in vivo settings. Performance evaluations range from global rating scales to psychometrics, and assessments are carried out through automation, expert analysts, and crowdsourcing.

CONCLUSION

There have been rapid expansions in approaches to RAS technical skills assessment, both in simulated and clinical settings. Alternative approaches to assessment in RAS, such as crowdsourcing and psychometrics, remain under investigation. Evidence to support the use of these metrics in high-stakes decisions is likely insufficient at present.

Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgical systems have been used at a rapidly increasing rate in general surgery. Many of these procedures have been performed laparoscopically for years. In a surgical encounter, a significant portion of the total costs is associated with consumable supplies. Our hospital system has invested in a software program that can track the costs of consumable surgical supplies. We sought to determine the differences in cost of consumables with elective laparoscopic and robotic procedures for our health care organization.

METHODS

De-identified procedural cost and equipment utilization data were collected from the Surgical Profitability Compass Procedure Cost Manager System (The Advisory Board Company, Washington, DC) for our health care system for laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and inguinal hernia between the years 2013 and 2015. Outcomes were length of stay, case duration, and supply cost. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test for continuous variables, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The total cost of consumable surgical supplies was significantly greater for all robotic procedures. Length of stay did not differ for fundoplication or cholecystectomy. Length of stay was greater for robotic inguinal hernia repair. Case duration was similar for cholecystectomy (84.3 robotic and 75.5 min laparoscopic, p = 0.08), but significantly longer for robotic fundoplication (197.2 robotic and 162.1 min laparoscopic, p = 0.01) and inguinal hernia repair (124.0 robotic and 84.4 min laparoscopic, p = ≪0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significantly increased cost of general surgery procedures for our health care system when cases commonly performed laparoscopically are instead performed robotically. Our analysis is limited by the fact that we only included costs associated with consumable surgical supplies. The initial acquisition cost (over $1 million for robotic surgical system), depreciation, and service contract for the robotic and laparoscopic systems were not included in this analysis.