Courtney A Green1, Hueylan Chern2, Patricia S O'Sullivan3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: Courtney.Green@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current robot surgery curricula developed by industry were designed for expert surgeons. We sought to identify the robotic curricula that currently exist in general surgery residencies and describe their components. METHODS: We identified 12 residency programs with robotic curricula. Using a structured coding form to identify themes including sequence, duration, emphasis and assessment, we generated a descriptive summary. RESULTS: Curricula followed a similar sequence: learners started with online modules and simulation exercises, followed by bedside experience during R2-R3 training years, and then operative opportunities on the console in the final years of training. Consistent portions of the curricula reflect a device-dependent training paradigm; they defined the sequence of instruction. Most curricula lacked specifics on duration and content of training activities. None clearly described cognitive or psychomotor skills needed by residents and none required a proficiency assessment before graduation. CONCLUSIONS: Resident-specific robotic curricula remain grounded in initial industrial efforts to train experienced surgeons, are non-specific regarding the type and nature of hands on experience, and do not include discussion of operative technique and surgical concepts.
BACKGROUND: Current robot surgery curricula developed by industry were designed for expert surgeons. We sought to identify the robotic curricula that currently exist in general surgery residencies and describe their components. METHODS: We identified 12 residency programs with robotic curricula. Using a structured coding form to identify themes including sequence, duration, emphasis and assessment, we generated a descriptive summary. RESULTS: Curricula followed a similar sequence: learners started with online modules and simulation exercises, followed by bedside experience during R2-R3 training years, and then operative opportunities on the console in the final years of training. Consistent portions of the curricula reflect a device-dependent training paradigm; they defined the sequence of instruction. Most curricula lacked specifics on duration and content of training activities. None clearly described cognitive or psychomotor skills needed by residents and none required a proficiency assessment before graduation. CONCLUSIONS: Resident-specific robotic curricula remain grounded in initial industrial efforts to train experienced surgeons, are non-specific regarding the type and nature of hands on experience, and do not include discussion of operative technique and surgical concepts.