Literature DB >> 35657506

The current status of robotic colorectal surgery training programmes.

Deena Harji1,2, Fergus Houston3, Joshua Burke4,5, Ben Griffiths6, Henry Tilney7,8, Danilo Miskovic9, Charles Evans10, Jim Khan11,12, Naeem Soomro4,13, Simon P Bach4,14.   

Abstract

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is steadily increasing in popularity with an annual growth in the number of colorectal procedures undertaken robotically. Further upscaling of RACS requires structured and standardised robotic training to safeguard high-quality clinical outcomes. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the structure and assessment metrics of currently established RACS training programmes. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines was performed. Searches were performed of the Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases between 2000 and 27th November 2021 to identify studies reporting on training curricula in RACS. Core components of training programmes and their relevant outcome assessment metrics were extracted. Thirteen studies were identified, with all training programmes designed for the da Vinci platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Common elements of multimodal programmes included theoretical knowledge (76.9%), case observation (53.8%), simulation (100%) and proctored training (76.9%). Robotic skills acquisition was assessed primarily during the simulation phase (n = 4, 30.1%) and proctoring phase (n = 10, 76.9%). Performance metrics, consisting of time or assessment scores for VR simulation were only mandated in four (30.1%) studies. Objective assessment following proctored training was variably reported and employed a range of assessment metrics, including direct feedback (n = 3, 23.1%) or video feedback (n = 8, 61.5%). Five (38.4%) training programmes used the Global Assessment Score (GAS) forms. There is a broad consensus on the core multimodal components across current RACS training programmes; however, validated objective assessment is limited and needs to be appropriately standardised to ensure reproducible progression criteria and competency-based metrics are produced to robustly assess progression and competence.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Curriculum; Robotic colorectal surgery; Training

Year:  2022        PMID: 35657506     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01421-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  3 in total

1.  Fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery within the current hospital setting: an achievable goal?

Authors:  Peadar S Waters; Julie Flynn; Jose T Larach; Diharah Fernando; Oliver Peacock; Jake D Foster; Michael Flood; Jacob J McCormick; Satish K Warrier; Alexander G Heriot
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 1.872

2.  Recommendations for a standardised educational program in robot assisted gynaecological surgery: Consensus from the Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS).

Authors:  P Rusch; T Ind; R Kimmig; A Maggioni; J Ponce; V Zanagnolo; P J Coronado; J Verguts; E Lambaudie; H Falconer; J W Collins; Rhm Verheijen
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2019-03

3.  Short-term clinical outcomes of a European training programme for robotic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Sofoklis Panteleimonitis; Danilo Miskovic; Rachelle Bissett-Amess; Nuno Figueiredo; Matthias Turina; Giuseppe Spinoglio; Richard J Heald; Amjad Parvaiz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.