Nnenna S Nwaelugo1, Matthew I Goldblatt1, Jon C Gould1, Rana M Higgins2. 1. Division of Minimally Invasive and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. 2. Division of Minimally Invasive and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. rhiggins@mcw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted general surgery procedures are becoming commonplace, requiring more residency programs to establish training curricula for residents. Concerns exist regarding the impact this will have on surgical residents' operative case distribution in laparoscopic and open surgery. This study aimed to analyze the impact of a growing robotic operative case volume and established robotic surgery training curriculum on the general surgery resident operative experience. METHODS: The robotic surgery training curriculum at the Medical College of Wisconsin was established in 2017. ACGME operative case logs of residents from 2014 to 2020 were analyzed to determine resident participation in open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases. Case categories included alimentary tract, abdomen, endocrine, thoracic, pediatric, and trauma. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze overall cases, as well as participation by case type, post-graduate year (PGY) level, resident role, and institution type. Statistical significance was defined as a p value < 0.05. RESULTS: Operative case logs from 77 residents were analyzed with a total of 34,757 cases: 59.3% open, 39.6% laparoscopic, and 1.1% robotic. There was no significant change in open or laparoscopic case volumes. However, there was a 3.4% increase in robotic cases, from 2014 to 2020 (p = 0.01), specifically in foregut (4.0%, p = 0.01), intestinal (1.6%, p = 0.03), and hernia (8.3%, p = 0.003) procedures. Academic (2.8%, p = 0.01) and veterans' hospital (2.0%, p = 0.01) institutions saw a significant increase in their residents' robotic cases. The only resident role with a significant increase in robotic cases was first assistant (8.0%, p = 0.004). There was no significant difference across PGY levels by surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that the growth of robotic cases has not had a detrimental effect on the resident experience with open and laparoscopic cases. As robotic cases continually increase, the impact on laparoscopic and open case volumes must be monitored to ensure a well-balanced training experience.
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted general surgery procedures are becoming commonplace, requiring more residency programs to establish training curricula for residents. Concerns exist regarding the impact this will have on surgical residents' operative case distribution in laparoscopic and open surgery. This study aimed to analyze the impact of a growing robotic operative case volume and established robotic surgery training curriculum on the general surgery resident operative experience. METHODS: The robotic surgery training curriculum at the Medical College of Wisconsin was established in 2017. ACGME operative case logs of residents from 2014 to 2020 were analyzed to determine resident participation in open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases. Case categories included alimentary tract, abdomen, endocrine, thoracic, pediatric, and trauma. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze overall cases, as well as participation by case type, post-graduate year (PGY) level, resident role, and institution type. Statistical significance was defined as a p value < 0.05. RESULTS: Operative case logs from 77 residents were analyzed with a total of 34,757 cases: 59.3% open, 39.6% laparoscopic, and 1.1% robotic. There was no significant change in open or laparoscopic case volumes. However, there was a 3.4% increase in robotic cases, from 2014 to 2020 (p = 0.01), specifically in foregut (4.0%, p = 0.01), intestinal (1.6%, p = 0.03), and hernia (8.3%, p = 0.003) procedures. Academic (2.8%, p = 0.01) and veterans' hospital (2.0%, p = 0.01) institutions saw a significant increase in their residents' robotic cases. The only resident role with a significant increase in robotic cases was first assistant (8.0%, p = 0.004). There was no significant difference across PGY levels by surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that the growth of robotic cases has not had a detrimental effect on the resident experience with open and laparoscopic cases. As robotic cases continually increase, the impact on laparoscopic and open case volumes must be monitored to ensure a well-balanced training experience.
Authors: Morgan K Richards; Jarod P McAteer; F Thurston Drake; Adam B Goldin; Saurabh Khandelwal; Kenneth W Gow Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Patrick D Melmer; Christen Chaconas; Ryan Taylor; Elizabeth Verrico; April Cockcroft; Aaron Pinnola; Sharon Holmes; Jason D Sciarretta; John Mirhan Davis Journal: Am Surg Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Luise I M Pernar; Faith C Robertson; Ali Tavakkoli; Eric G Sheu; David C Brooks; Douglas S Smink Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Camille L Stewart; Philip H G Ituarte; Kurt A Melstrom; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom; Lily L Lai; Yuman Fong; Yanghee Woo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 4.584