Development and validation of the metric-based assessment of a robotic vessel dissection, vessel loop positioning, clip applying and bipolar coagulation task on an avian model.
Dissection skills
Proficiency-based metrics
Robotic surgical training
Training task validation
Journal
Journal of robotic surgery
ISSN: 1863-2491
Titre abrégé: J Robot Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300401
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
14
05
2021
accepted:
31
07
2021
pubmed:
13
8
2021
medline:
31
5
2022
entrez:
12
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The evolution of robotic technology and its diffusion does not seem to have been adequately accompanied by the development and implementation of surgeon training programs that ensure skilled and safe device use at the start of the learning curve. The objective of the study is to develop and validate performance metrics for vessel dissection, vessel loop positioning, clip applying and bipolar coagulation using an avian model. Three robotic surgeons and a behavioral scientist characterized the performance metrics of the task according to the proficiency-based progression methodology. Fourteen experienced robotic surgeons from different European countries participated in a modified online Delphi consensus. Eight experienced surgeons and eight novices performed the robotic task twice. In the Delphi meeting, 100% consensus was reached on the performance metrics. Novice surgeons took 26 min to complete the entire task on trial 1 and 20 min on trial 2. Experts took 10.1 min and 9.5 min. On average the Expert Group completed the task 137% faster than the Novice Group. The amount of time to reach the vessel part of the task was also calculated. Novice surgeons took 26 min on trial 1 and 20 min on trial 2. Experts took 5.5 min and 4.8 min. On average the experts reached the vessel 200% faster than the novices. The Expert Group made 155% fewer performance errors than the Novice Group. The mean IRR of video-recorded performance assessments for all metrics was 0.96 (95% confidence intervals (CI) lower = 0.94-upper = 0.98). We report the development and validation for a standard and replicable basic robotic vessel dissection, vessel loop positioning, clip applying and bipolar coagulation task on an avian model. The development of objective performance metrics, based on a transparent and fair methodology (i.e., PBP), is the first fundamental step toward quality assured training. This task developed on the avian model proved to have good results in the validation study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34383208
doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01293-6
pii: 10.1007/s11701-021-01293-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
677-685Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Yates DR, Vaessen C, Roupret M (2011) From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robot-assisted surgery in urology. BJU Int 108(11):1708–1713 (discussion 1714)
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10576.x
Puliatti S, Elsherbiny A, Eissa A et al (2019) Effect of puboprostatic ligament reconstruction on continence recovery after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: our initial experience. Minerva Urol Nefrol 71(3):230–239
doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03260-5
Mazzone E, Dell’Oglio P, Rosiello G et al (2020) Technical refinements in superextended robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer patients at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol 80(1):104–112
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.009
Nik-Ahd F, Souders CP, Zhao H et al (2019) Robotic urologic surgery: trends in litigation over the last decade. J Robot Surg 13(6):729–734
doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-00905-y
Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Leveson N et al (2016) Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS One 11(4):e0151470
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151470
Pradarelli JC, Thornton JP, Dimick JB (2017) Who is responsible for the safe introduction of new surgical technology?: An important legal precedent from the da Vinci Surgical System Trials. JAMA Surg 152(8):717–718
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0841
Beulens AJW, Hashish YAF, Brinkman WM et al (2020) Training novice robot surgeons: proctoring provides same results as simulator-generated guidance. J Robot Surg 21:S26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)35868-7
doi: 10.1016/S2666-1683(20)35868-7
Beulens AJW, Vaartjes L, Tilli S et al (2020) Structured robot-assisted surgery training curriculum for residents in urology and impact on future surgical activity. J Robot Surg 21:S24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)35866-3
doi: 10.1016/S2666-1683(20)35866-3
Puliatti S, Mazzone E, Dell’Oglio P (2020) Training in robot-assisted surgery. Curr Opin Urol 30(1):65–72
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000687
Vanlander AE, Mazzone E, Collins JW et al (2020) Orsi consensus meeting on european robotic training (OCERT): results from the first multispecialty consensus meeting on training in robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol 78(5):713–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.02.003
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.02.003
pubmed: 32089358
Pierorazio PM, Allaf ME (2009) Minimally invasive surgical training: challenges and solutions. Urol Oncol 27(2):208–213
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.09.017
Puliatti S, Mazzone E, Amato M et al (2020) Development and validation of the objective assessment of robotic suturing and knot tying skills for chicken anastomotic model. Surg Endosc 35(8):4285–4294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07918-5
doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07918-5
pubmed: 32857241
Somani B, Brouwers T, Veneziano D et al (2021) Standardization in Surgical Education (SISE): development and implementation of an innovative training program for urologic surgery residents and trainers by the European school of urology in collaboration with the ESUT and EULIS Sections of the EAU. Eur Urol 79(3):433–434
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.12.003
Healy GB (2002) The college should be instrumental in adapting simulators to education. Bull Am Coll Surg 87(11):10–11
pubmed: 17387916
Gallagher AG, Cates CU (2004) Approval of virtual reality training for carotid stenting: what this means for procedural-based medicine. JAMA 292(24):3024–3026
doi: 10.1001/jama.292.24.3024
Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–463 (discussion 463-4)
doi: 10.1097/00000658-200210000-00008
Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG et al (2007) Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg 193(6):797–804
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.06.050
Gallagher A (2012) Metric-based simulation training to proficiency in medical education: what it is and how to do it. Ulster Med J 81(3):107–113
pubmed: 23620606
pmcid: 3632817
Cates CU, Gallagher AG (2012) The future of simulation technologies for complex cardiovascular procedures. Eur Heart J 33(17):2127–2134
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs155
Gallagher AG, O’Sullivan GC (2011) Fundamentals of surgical simulation principles and practices. Springer Verlag, London
Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H et al (2005) Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg 241(2):364–372
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000151982.85062.80
Mazzone E, Puliatti S, Amato M et al (2020) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of proficiency-based progression simulation training on performance outcomes. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004650
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004650
Gallagher AG, Ryu RKN, Pedowitz RA et al (2018) Inter-rater reliability for metrics scored in a binary fashion-performance assessment for an arthroscopic bankart repair. Arthroscopy 34(7):2191–2198
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.02.007
Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev 100(3):363–406
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
Gallagher AG, Henn P (2014) Simulation fidelity: more than experience and mere repetition? Stud Health Technol Inform 196:128–134
pubmed: 24732493
Satava R (2007) The future of surgical simulation and surgical robotics. Bull Am Coll Surg 92(3):13–19
pubmed: 17419163
O’Sullivan S, Leonard S, Holzinger A et al (2020) Operational framework and training standard requirements for AI-empowered robotic surgery. Int J Med Robot 30:e2020