INTRODUCTION: Robotic technology has transformed both practice and education in many adult surgical specialties; no standardized training guidelines in pediatric surgery currently exist. The purpose of our study was to assess the prevalence of robotic procedures and extent of robotic surgery education in US pediatric surgery fellowships. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A deidentified survey measured utilization of the robot, perception on the utility of the robot, and its incorporation in training among the program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pediatric surgery fellowships in the United States. RESULTS: Forty-one of the 47 fellowship programs (87%) responded to the survey. While 67% of respondents indicated the presence of a robot in their facility, only 26% reported its utilizing in their surgical practice. Among programs not utilizing the robot, most common reasons provided were lack of clear supportive evidence, increased intraoperative time, and incompatibility of instrument size to pediatric patients. While 58% of program directors believe that there is a future role for robotic surgery in children, only 18% indicated that robotic training should play a part in pediatric surgery education. Consequently, while over 66% of survey respondents received training in robot-assisted surgical technique, only 29% of fellows receive robot-assisted training during their fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of fellowships have access to a robot, but few utilize the technology in their current practice or as part of training. Further investigation is required into both the technology's potential benefits in the pediatric population and its role in pediatric surgery training.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic technology has transformed both practice and education in many adult surgical specialties; no standardized training guidelines in pediatric surgery currently exist. The purpose of our study was to assess the prevalence of robotic procedures and extent of robotic surgery education in US pediatric surgery fellowships. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A deidentified survey measured utilization of the robot, perception on the utility of the robot, and its incorporation in training among the program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pediatric surgery fellowships in the United States. RESULTS: Forty-one of the 47 fellowship programs (87%) responded to the survey. While 67% of respondents indicated the presence of a robot in their facility, only 26% reported its utilizing in their surgical practice. Among programs not utilizing the robot, most common reasons provided were lack of clear supportive evidence, increased intraoperative time, and incompatibility of instrument size to pediatric patients. While 58% of program directors believe that there is a future role for robotic surgery in children, only 18% indicated that robotic training should play a part in pediatric surgery education. Consequently, while over 66% of survey respondents received training in robot-assisted surgical technique, only 29% of fellows receive robot-assisted training during their fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of fellowships have access to a robot, but few utilize the technology in their current practice or as part of training. Further investigation is required into both the technology's potential benefits in the pediatric population and its role in pediatric surgery training.