Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2012

01-10-2012

Comprehensive proficiency-based inanimate training for robotic surgery: reliability, feasibility, and educational benefit

Authors: Nabeel A. Arain, Genevieve Dulan, Deborah C. Hogg, Robert V. Rege, Cathryn E. Powers, Seifu T. Tesfay, Linda S. Hynan, Daniel J. Scott

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 10/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We previously developed a comprehensive proficiency-based robotic training curriculum demonstrating construct, content, and face validity. This study aimed to assess reliability, feasibility, and educational benefit associated with curricular implementation.

Methods

Over an 11-month period, 55 residents, fellows, and faculty (robotic novices) from general surgery, urology, and gynecology were enrolled in a 2-month curriculum: online didactics, half-day hands-on tutorial, and self-practice using nine inanimate exercises. Each trainee completed a questionnaire and performed a single proctored repetition of each task before (pretest) and after (post-test) training. Tasks were scored for time and errors using modified FLS metrics. For inter-rater reliability (IRR), three trainees were scored by two raters and analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Data from eight experts were analyzed using ICC and Cronbach’s α to determine test-retest reliability and internal consistency, respectively. Educational benefit was assessed by comparing baseline (pretest) and final (post-test) trainee performance; comparisons used Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

Of the 55 trainees that pretested, 53 (96 %) completed all curricular components in 9–17 h and reached proficiency after completing an average of 72 ± 28 repetitions over 5 ± 1 h. Trainees indicated minimal prior robotic experience and “poor comfort” with robotic skills at baseline (1.8 ± 0.9) compared to final testing (3.1 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). IRR data for the composite score revealed an ICC of 0.96 (p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability was 0.91 (p < 0.001) and internal consistency was 0.81. Performance improved significantly after training for all nine tasks and according to composite scores (548 ± 176 vs. 914 ± 81, p < 0.001), demonstrating educational benefit.

Conclusion

This curriculum is associated with high reliability measures, demonstrated feasibility for a large cohort of trainees, and yielded significant educational benefit. Further studies and adoption of this curriculum are encouraged.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Orvieto MA, Patel VR (2009) Evolution of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Surg 98:76–88PubMed Orvieto MA, Patel VR (2009) Evolution of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Surg 98:76–88PubMed
2.
go back to reference Weinberg L, Rao S, Escobar PF (2011) Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011:852061PubMed Weinberg L, Rao S, Escobar PF (2011) Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011:852061PubMed
3.
go back to reference Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM (2011) Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 185:1191–1197PubMedCrossRef Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM (2011) Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 185:1191–1197PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM, Lee DI, Sundaram CP, Matin SF, Castle EP, Winfield HN, Gettman MT, Lee BR, Thomas R, Patel VR, Leveillee RJ, Wong C, Badlani GH, Rha KH, Eggener SE, Wiklund P, Mottrie A, Atug F, Kural AR, Joseph JV, Members of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medico-legal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132PubMedCrossRef Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM, Lee DI, Sundaram CP, Matin SF, Castle EP, Winfield HN, Gettman MT, Lee BR, Thomas R, Patel VR, Leveillee RJ, Wong C, Badlani GH, Rha KH, Eggener SE, Wiklund P, Mottrie A, Atug F, Kural AR, Joseph JV, Members of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medico-legal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery (in press) Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery (in press)
6.
go back to reference Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher K, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Content and face validity of a comprehensive skills training program for general surgery, urology, and gynecology robotic operations. Am J Surg 203(4):535–539PubMedCrossRef Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher K, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Content and face validity of a comprehensive skills training program for general surgery, urology, and gynecology robotic operations. Am J Surg 203(4):535–539PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher K, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-2102-6 Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher K, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises. Surg Endosc. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-011-2102-6
8.
go back to reference Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM (2003) Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc 17:1525–1529PubMedCrossRef Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM (2003) Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc 17:1525–1529PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–528PubMedCrossRef Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–528PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Fried GM, Feldman LS (2008) Objective assessment of technical performance. World J Surg 32:156–160PubMedCrossRef Fried GM, Feldman LS (2008) Objective assessment of technical performance. World J Surg 32:156–160PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Vassiliou MC, Ghitulescu GA, Feldman LS, Stanbridge D, Leffondre K, Sigman HH, Fried GM (2006) The MISTELS program to measure technical skill in laparoscopic surgery: evidence for reliability. Surg Endsoc 20:744–747CrossRef Vassiliou MC, Ghitulescu GA, Feldman LS, Stanbridge D, Leffondre K, Sigman HH, Fried GM (2006) The MISTELS program to measure technical skill in laparoscopic surgery: evidence for reliability. Surg Endsoc 20:744–747CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187(1):247–252PubMedCrossRef Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187(1):247–252PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Gall M, Borg W, Gall J (1996) Educational research: an introduction. Longman, White Plains Gall M, Borg W, Gall J (1996) Educational research: an introduction. Longman, White Plains
Metadata
Title
Comprehensive proficiency-based inanimate training for robotic surgery: reliability, feasibility, and educational benefit
Authors
Nabeel A. Arain
Genevieve Dulan
Deborah C. Hogg
Robert V. Rege
Cathryn E. Powers
Seifu T. Tesfay
Linda S. Hynan
Daniel J. Scott
Publication date
01-10-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 10/2012
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2264-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2012

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2012 Go to the issue