Literature DB >> 23484743

Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum.

Andrew P Stegemann1, Kamran Ahmed, Johar R Syed, Shabnam Rehman, Khurshid Ghani, Ricardo Autorino, Mohamed Sharif, Amrith Rao, Yi Shi, Gregory E Wilding, James M Hassett, Ashirwad Chowriappa, Thenkurussi Kesavadas, James O Peabody, Mani Menon, Jihad Kaouk, Khurshid Ahad Guru.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and establish effectiveness of simulation-based robotic curriculum--fundamental skills of robotic surgery (FSRS).
METHODS: FSRS curriculum was developed and incorporated into a virtual reality simulator, Robotic Surgical Simulator (RoSS). Fifty-three participants were randomized into an experimental group (EG) or control group (CG). The EG was asked to complete the FSRS and 1 final test on the da Vinci Surgical System (dVSS). The dVSS test consisted of 3 tasks: ball placement, suture pass, and fourth arm manipulation. The CG was directly tested on the dVSS then offered the chance to complete the FSRS and re-tested on the dVSS as a crossover (CO) group.
RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of participants had never formally trained using laparoscopic surgery. Ball placement: the EG demonstrated shorter time (142 vs 164 seconds, P = .134) and more precise (1.5 vs 2.5 drops, P = .014). The CO took less time (P <.001) with greater precision (P <.001). Instruments were rarely lost from the field. Suture pass: the EG demonstrated better camera utilization (4.3 vs 3.0, P = .078). Less instrument loss occurred (0.5 vs 1.1, P = .026). Proper camera usage significantly improved (P = .009). Fourth arm manipulation: the EG took less time (132 vs 157 seconds, P = .302). Meanwhile, loss of instruments was less frequent (0.2 vs 0.8, P = .076). Precision in the CO improved significantly (P = .042) and camera control and safe instrument manipulation showed improvement (1.5 vs 3.5, 0.2 vs 0.9, respectively).
CONCLUSION: FSRS curriculum is a valid, feasible, and structured curriculum that demonstrates its effectiveness by significant improvements in basic robotic surgery skills.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23484743     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  33 in total

1.  Robotic surgery, skills and simulation: a technical sport.

Authors:  S S Goonewardene; D Cahill
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-11-14

Review 2.  Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: a review.

Authors:  Justin D Bric; Derek C Lumbard; Matthew J Frelich; Jon C Gould
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon.

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

4.  A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education.

Authors:  Richard Chen; Priscila Rodrigues Armijo; Crystal Krause; Ka-Chun Siu; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Evolution and literature review of robotic general surgery resident training 2002-2018.

Authors:  David L Crawford; Anthony Michael Dwyer
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-07-27

6.  Comparative analysis of the functionality of simulators of the da Vinci surgical robot.

Authors:  Roger Smith; Mireille Truong; Manuela Perez
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Implementing a robotics curriculum at an academic general surgery training program: our initial experience.

Authors:  Joshua S Winder; Ryan M Juza; Jennifer Sasaki; Ann M Rogers; Eric M Pauli; Randy S Haluck; Stephanie J Estes; Jerome R Lyn-Sue
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-03-19

Review 8.  Surgical simulation: the value of individualization.

Authors:  Greta V Bernier; Jaime E Sanchez
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Training current and future robotic surgeons simultaneously: initial experiences with safety and efficiency.

Authors:  Ryan M Juza; Randy S Haluck; Eugene J Won; Laura M Enomoto; Eric M Pauli; Ann M Rogers; Vinay Singhal; Tung Tran; Stephanie J Estes; Jerome R Lyn-Sue
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-03-04

10.  Robotics in otolaryngology and head and neck surgery: Recommendations for training and credentialing: A report of the 2015 AHNS education committee, AAO-HNS robotic task force and AAO-HNS sleep disorders committee.

Authors:  Neil D Gross; F Christopher Holsinger; J Scott Magnuson; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Eric M Genden; Tamer Ah Ghanem; Kathleen L Yaremchuk; David Goldenberg; Matthew C Miller; Eric J Moore; Luc Gt Morris; James Netterville; Gregory S Weinstein; Jeremy Richmon
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 3.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.