Abstract
To determine the current state of robotic urological practice, to establish how robotic training has been delivered and to ascertain whether this training was felt to be adequate. A questionnaire was emailed to members of the European Association of Urology robotic urology section mailing list. Outcomes were subdivided into three groups: demographics, exposure and barriers to training, and delivery of training. A comparative analysis of trainees and independently practising robotic surgeons was performed. 239 surgeons completed the survey, of these 117 (48.9 %) were practising robotic surgeons with the remainder either trainees or surgeons who had had received training in robotic surgery. The majority of robotic surgeons performed robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (90.6 %) and were undertaking >50 robotic cases per annum (55.6 %). Overall, only 66.3 % of respondents felt their robotic training needs had been met. Trainee satisfaction was significantly lower than that of independently practising surgeons (51.6 versus 71.6 %, p = 0.01). When a subgroup analysis of trainees was performed examining the relationship between regular simulator access and satisfaction, simulator access was a positive predictor of satisfaction, with 87.5 % of those with regular access versus 36.8 % of those without access being satisfied (p < 0.01). This study reveals that a significant number of urologists do not feel that their robotic training needs have been met. Increased access to simulation, as part of a structured curriculum, appears to improve satisfaction with training and, simultaneously, allows for a proportion of a surgeon’s learning curve to be removed from the operating room.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hofer MD, Meeks JJ, Cashy J et al (2013) Impact of increasing prevalence of minimally invasive prostatectomy on open prostatectomy observed in the national inpatient sample and national surgical quality improvement program. J Endourol 27:102–107
Ben-Or S, Nifong LW, Chitwood WR (2013) Robotic surgical training. Cancer J 19:120–123
Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL et al (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132
Shaligram A, Meyer A, Simorov A et al (2013) Survey of minimally invasive general surgery fellows training in robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 7:131–136
Robinson M, Macneily A, Goldenberg L et al (2012) Status of robotic-assisted surgery among Canadian urology residents. Can J Urol 6:160–167
Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC et al (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–528
Sweet RM, Beach R, Sainfort F et al (2012) Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association basic laparoscopic urologic surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol 26:190–196
Ikonen TS, Antikainen T, Silvennoinen M et al (2012) Virtual reality simulator training of laparoscopic cholecystectomies—a systematic review. Scand J Surg 101:5–12
Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC et al (2012) Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator—role as an assessment tool? J Urol 187:998–1002
Finnegan KT, Meraney AM, Staff I et al (2012) da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology 80:330–335
Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186:1019–1024
Hung AJ, Jayaratna IS, Teruya K et al (2013) Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int 112:1–9
Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC et al (2012) Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery 152:477–488
Hung AJ, Ng CK, Patil MB et al (2012) Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model. BJU Int 110:870–874
Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR et al (2013) Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 81:767–774
Suh I, Mukherjee M, Oleynikov D et al (2011) Training program for fundamental surgical skill in robotic laparoscopic surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 7:327–333
Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 6:e34
Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke M et al (2010) Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires (Review). Cochrane Collab
Yu H, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR et al (2012) Comparative analysis of outcomes and costs following open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Eur Urol 61:1239–1244
Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2011) Innovation in surgical education—a driver for change. Surgeon 9:S30–S31
Palter VN, Orzech N, Reznick RK et al (2013) Validation of a structured training and assessment curriculum for technical skill acquisition in minimally invasive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 257:224–230
Kroeze SGC, Mayer EK, Chopra S et al (2009) Assessment of laparoscopic suturing skills of urology residents: a pan-European study. Eur Urol 56:865–872
Banks EH, Chudnoff S, Karmin I et al (2007) Does a surgical simulator improve resident operative performance of laparoscopic tubal ligation? Am J Obs Gynecol. 197(541):e1–e5
Kirby TO, Numnum TM, Kilgore LC et al (2008) A prospective evaluation of a simulator-based laparoscopic training program for gynecology residents. J Am Coll Surg 206:343–348
Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2009) From scalpel to simulator: a surgical journey. Surgery 145:1–4
Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK et al (2006) Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 49:866–871 (discussion 871–872)
Sfakianos GP, Frederick PJ, Kendrick JE et al (2010) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology fellowship programs in the USA: a survey of fellows and fellowship directors. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 6:405–412
Duchene D, Moinzadeh A, Gill IS et al (2006) Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol 176:2158–2166
Khurshid G, Hussain A, Chandrasekhar R et al (2009) Current status of robot-assisted surgery in urology: a multi-national survey of 297 urologic surgeons. Can J Urol 16:4736–4741
Conflict of interest
Mr. Archie Hughes-Hallett declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mr. Erik Mayer declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dr. Philip Pratt declares that he has no conflict of interest. Prof. Alex Mottrie declares that he has no conflict of interest. Prof. Ara Darzi declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mr Justin Vale declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hughes-Hallett, A., Mayer, E., Pratt, P. et al. A census of robotic urological practice and training: a survey of the robotic section of the European Association of Urology. J Robotic Surg 8, 349–355 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0478-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0478-8