BACKGROUND: We previously developed nine inanimate training exercises as part of a comprehensive, proficiency-based robotic training curriculum that addressed 23 unique skills identified via task deconstruction of robotic operations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate construct validity, workload, and expert levels for the nine exercises. METHODS: Expert robotic surgeons (n = 8, fellows and faculty) and novice trainees (n = 4, medical students) each performed three to five consecutive repetitions of nine previously reported exercises (five FLS models with or without modifications and four custom-made models). Each task was scored for time and accuracy using modified FLS metrics; task scores were normalized to a previously established (preliminary) proficiency level and a composite score equaled the sum of the nine normalized task scores. Questionnaires were administered regarding prior experience. After each exercise, participants completed a validated NASA-TLX Workload Scale to rate the mental, physical, temporal, performance, effort, and frustration levels of each task. RESULTS: Experts had performed 119 (range = 15-600) robotic operations; novices had observed ≤ 1 robotic operation. For all nine tasks and the composite score, experts achieved significantly better performance than novices (932 ± 67 vs. 618 ± 111, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences in workload between experts and novices were detected (32.9 ± 3.5 vs. 32.0 ± 9.1, respectively; n.s.). Importantly, frustration ratings were relatively low for both groups (4.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.8 ± 1.6, n.s.). The mean performance of the eight experts was deemed suitable as a revised proficiency level for each task. CONCLUSION: Using objective performance metrics, all nine exercises demonstrated construct validity. Workload was similar between experts and novices and frustration was low for both groups. These data suggest that the nine structured exercises are suitable for proficiency-based robotic training.
BACKGROUND: We previously developed nine inanimate training exercises as part of a comprehensive, proficiency-based robotic training curriculum that addressed 23 unique skills identified via task deconstruction of robotic operations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate construct validity, workload, and expert levels for the nine exercises. METHODS: Expert robotic surgeons (n = 8, fellows and faculty) and novice trainees (n = 4, medical students) each performed three to five consecutive repetitions of nine previously reported exercises (five FLS models with or without modifications and four custom-made models). Each task was scored for time and accuracy using modified FLS metrics; task scores were normalized to a previously established (preliminary) proficiency level and a composite score equaled the sum of the nine normalized task scores. Questionnaires were administered regarding prior experience. After each exercise, participants completed a validated NASA-TLX Workload Scale to rate the mental, physical, temporal, performance, effort, and frustration levels of each task. RESULTS: Experts had performed 119 (range = 15-600) robotic operations; novices had observed ≤ 1 robotic operation. For all nine tasks and the composite score, experts achieved significantly better performance than novices (932 ± 67 vs. 618 ± 111, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences in workload between experts and novices were detected (32.9 ± 3.5 vs. 32.0 ± 9.1, respectively; n.s.). Importantly, frustration ratings were relatively low for both groups (4.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.8 ± 1.6, n.s.). The mean performance of the eight experts was deemed suitable as a revised proficiency level for each task. CONCLUSION: Using objective performance metrics, all nine exercises demonstrated construct validity. Workload was similar between experts and novices and frustration was low for both groups. These data suggest that the nine structured exercises are suitable for proficiency-based robotic training.
Authors: Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman; Melina C Vassiliou; Shannon A Fraser; Donna Stanbridge; Gabriela Ghitulescu; Christopher G Andrew Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: James R Korndorffer; John L Clayton; Seifu T Tesfay; William C Brunner; Rafael Sierra; J Bruce Dunne; Daniel B Jones; Robert V Rege; Cheri L Touchard; Daniel J Scott Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Mouza T Goova; Lisa A Hollett; Seifu T Tesfay; Rajiv B Gala; Nancy Puzziferri; Farid J Kehdy; Daniel J Scott Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; Fikre Wang; James R Korndorffer; J Bruce Dunne; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Lauren B Mashaud; Antonio O Castellvi; Lisa A Hollett; Deborah C Hogg; Seifu T Tesfay; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surgery Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; James R Korndorffer; F William Black; J Bruce Dunne; Rafael Sierra; Cheri L Touchard; David A Rice; Ronald J Markert; Peter R Kastl; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surgery Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Stéfanie A Seixas-Mikelus; Andrew P Stegemann; Thenkurussi Kesavadas; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Gughan Sathyaseelan; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Gregory E Wilding; James O Peabody; Khurshid A Guru Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Nabeel A Arain; Genevieve Dulan; Deborah C Hogg; Robert V Rege; Cathryn E Powers; Seifu T Tesfay; Linda S Hynan; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Daniel J Kiely; Walter H Gotlieb; Susie Lau; Xing Zeng; Vanessa Samouelian; Agnihotram V Ramanakumar; Helena Zakrzewski; Sonya Brin; Shannon A Fraser; Pira Korsieporn; Laura Drudi; Joshua Z Press Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2015-05-16
Authors: Michael I Hanzly; Tareq Al-Tartir; Syed Johar Raza; Atif Khan; Mohammad Manan Durrani; Thomas Fiorica; Phillip Ginsberg; James L Mohler; Boris Kuvshinoff; Khurshid A Guru Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Erika Palagonia; Elio Mazzone; Geert De Naeyer; Frederiek D'Hondt; Justin Collins; Pawel Wisz; Fijs W B Van Leeuwen; Henk Van Der Poel; Peter Schatteman; Alexandre Mottrie; Paolo Dell'Oglio Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 4.226