Literature DB >> 26154108

Construction of a Urologic Robotic Surgery Training Curriculum: How Many Simulator Sessions Are Required for Residents to Achieve Proficiency?

Scott Wiener1, Peter Haddock2, Steven Shichman3, Ryan Dorin3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To define the time needed by urology residents to attain proficiency in computer-aided robotic surgery to aid in the refinement of a robotic surgery simulation curriculum.
METHODS: We undertook a retrospective review of robotic skills training data acquired during January 2012 to December 2014 from junior (postgraduate year [PGY] 2-3) and senior (PGY4-5) urology residents using the da Vinci Skills Simulator. We determined the number of training sessions attended and the level of proficiency achieved by junior and senior residents in attempting 11 basic or 6 advanced tasks, respectively.
RESULTS: Junior residents successfully completed 9.9 ± 1.8 tasks, with 62.5% completing all 11 basic tasks. The maximal cumulative success rate of junior residents completing basic tasks was 89.8%, which was achieved within 7.0 ± 1.5 hours of training. Of senior residents, 75% successfully completed all six advanced tasks. Senior residents attended 6.3 ± 3.5 hours of training during which 5.1 ± 1.6 tasks were completed. The maximal cumulative success rate of senior residents completing advanced tasks was 85.4%.
CONCLUSION: When designing and implementing an effective robotic surgical training curriculum, an allocation of 10 hours of training may be optimal to allow junior and senior residents to achieve an acceptable level of surgical proficiency in basic and advanced robotic surgical skills, respectively. These data help guide the design and scheduling of a residents training curriculum within the time constraints of a resident's workload.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26154108     DOI: 10.1089/end.2015.0392

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  7 in total

Review 1.  Learning Curves for Robotic Surgery: a Review of the Recent Literature.

Authors:  Giorgio Mazzon; Ashwin Sridhar; Gerald Busuttil; James Thompson; Senthil Nathan; Tim Briggs; John Kelly; Greg Shaw
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09-23       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  The value of a 1-day multidisciplinary robot surgery training for novice robot surgeons.

Authors:  Alexander J W Beulens; Willem M Brinkman; Petra J Porte; Richard P Meijer; Jeroen J G van Merriënboer; Henk G Van der Poel; Cordula Wagner
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-11-22

3.  Robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of perioperative course and postoperative outcome after 1 year.

Authors:  Anthony Yang; Naman Barman; Edward Chin; Daniel Herron; Antonios Arvelakis; Dianne LaPointe Rudow; Sander S Florman; Michael A Palese
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-08-31

4.  Medical student experience with robot-assisted surgery after limited laparoscopy exposure.

Authors:  Nasit Vurgun; Tanawat Vongsurbchart; Aneta Myszka; Piotr Richter; Tomasz Rogula
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-07-23

5.  The application of virtual reality training for anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Fubo Wang; Chao Zhang; Fei Guo; Xia Sheng; Jin Ji; Yalong Xu; Zhi Cao; Ji Lyu; Xiaoying Lu; Bo Yang
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2019-12-04

6.  INFLUENCE OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC EXPERIENCE SKILLS ON ROBOTIC SURGERY DEXTERITY.

Authors:  Marcos Belotto; Larissa Coutinho; Adhemar M Pacheco-Jr; Anuar I Mitre; Eduardo Antunes da Fonseca
Journal:  Arq Bras Cir Dig       Date:  2022-01-05

7.  Current training on the basics of robotic surgery in the Netherlands: Time for a multidisciplinary approach?

Authors:  Willem Brinkman; Isabel de Angst; Henk Schreuder; Barbara Schout; Werner Draaisma; Lisanne Verweij; Ad Hendrikx; Henk van der Poel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.584

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.