Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-assisted surgery training (RAST) program: module 1 of a three-module program. Assessment of patient cart docking skills and educational environment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is currently no standardized robotic surgery training program in General Surgery Residency. RAST involves three modules: ergonomics, psychomotor, and procedural. This study aimed to report the results of module 1, which assessed the responsiveness of 27 PGY (postgraduate year) 1–5 general surgery residents (GSRs) to simulated patient cart docking, and to evaluate the residents’ perception of the educational environment from 2021 to 2022. GSRs prepared with pre-training educational video and multiple-choice questions test (MCQs). Faculty provided one-on-one resident hands-on training and testing. Nine proficiency criteria (deploy cart; boom control; driving cart; docking camera port; targeting anatomy; flex joints; clearance joints; port nozzles; emergency undocking) were assessed with five-point Likert scale. A validated 50-item Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM) inventory was used by GSRs to assess the educational environment. Mean MCQ scores: (90.6 ± 16.1 PGY1), (80.2 ± 18.1PGY2), (91.7 ± 16.5 PGY3) and (PGY4, 86.8 ± 18.1 PGY5) (ANOVA test; p = 0.885). Hands-on docking time decreased at testing when compared to base line: median 17.5 (range 15–20) min vs. 9.5 (range 8–11). Mean hands-on testing score was 4.75 ± 0.29 PGY1; 5.0 ± 0 PGY2 and PGY3, 4.78 ± 0.13 PGY4, and 4.93 ± 0.1 PGY5 (ANOVA test; p = 0.095). No correlation was found between pre-course MCQ score and hands-on training score (Pearson correlation coefficient = − 0.359; p = 0.066). There was no difference in the hands-on scores stratified by PGY. The overall DREEM score was 167.1 ± 16.9 with CAC = 0.908 (excellent internal consistency). Patient cart training impacted the responsiveness of GSRs with 54% docking time reduction and no differences in hands-on testing scores among PGYs with a highly positive perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request.

References

  1. Wormer BA, Dacey KT, Williams KB, Bradley JF 3rd, Walters AL, Augenstein VA et al (2014) The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start. Surg Endosc 28(3):767–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu R, Liu Q, Wang Z (2021) Worldwide diffusion of robotic approach in general surgery. Updates Surg 73(3):795–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Essani R, Scriven RJ, McLarty AJ, Merriam LT, Ahn H, Bergamaschi R (2009) Simulated laparoscopic sigmoidectomy training: responsiveness of surgery residents. Dis Colon Rectum 52(12):1956–1961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Castaldi M, Palmer M, Con J, Abouezzi Z, Latifi R, Bergamaschi R (2021) Robotic-assisted surgery training (RAST) program: an educational research protocol. Surg Technol Int 38:52–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Herron DM, Marohn M, Group S-MRSC (2008) A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22(2):313–325 (Discussion 1-2)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tom CM, Maciel JD, Korn A, Ozao-Choy JJ, Hari DM, Neville AL et al (2019) A survey of robotic surgery training curricula in general surgery residency programs: how close are we to a standardized curriculum? Am J Surg 217(2):256–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hutchins EB (1961) The 1960 medical school graduate: his perception of his faculty, peers, and environment. J Med Educ 36:322–329

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen R, Rodrigues Armijo P, Krause C, Force SRT, Siu KC, Oleynikov D (2020) A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education. Surg Endosc 34(1):361–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Green CA, Chern H, Rogers SJ, Reilly LM, O’Sullivan P (2021) Transforming surgical education through a resident robotic curriculum. Ann Surg Open 2(3):e076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM (2011) Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 185(4):1191–1197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Winder JS, Juza RM, Sasaki J, Rogers AM, Pauli EM, Haluck RS et al (2016) Implementing a robotics curriculum at an academic general surgery training program: our initial experience. J Robot Surg 10(3):209–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Crawford DL, Dwyer AM (2018) Evolution and literature review of robotic general surgery resident training 2002–2018. Updates Surg 70(3):363–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moit H, Dwyer A, De Sutter M, Heinzel S, Crawford D (2019) A standardized robotic training curriculum in a general surgery program. JSLS 23(4):e2019.00045

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are extremely grateful to the faculty instructors Ziad E. Abouezzi, MD, Ryan F. Bendl, MD, Francis X. Carroll, MD, and Ashutosh Kaul, MD. The authors also thank the general surgery residency office staff for their invaluable support in facilitating the residents’ participation to the training sessions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, Taylor Pavilion, Suite D-361, 100 Woods Road, Valhalla, NY, 10595, USA

    Maria Teresa Castaldi, Jorge Con & Roberto Bergamaschi

  2. Department of Surgery, New York Medical College, Taylor Pavilion, Suite D-361, 100 Woods Road, Valhalla, NY, 10595, USA

    Maria Teresa Castaldi, Mathias Palmer, Daniel Moritz Felsenreich, Jorge Con & Roberto Bergamaschi

Authors
  1. Maria Teresa Castaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathias Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Moritz Felsenreich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jorge Con
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roberto Bergamaschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Bergamaschi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors disclose financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.

Research involving human and animal rights

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 Proficiency criteria (DOCX 15 KB)

Supplementary file2 Instruction video (MP4 149733 KB)

Supplementary file3 DREEM inventory questionnaire and its subscale components. R- reverse scoring (DOCX 15 KB)

13304_2023_1485_MOESM4_ESM.docx

Supplementary file4 Box plots depicting stratification of mean MCQ score and mean hands-on training score by gender (DOCX 94 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castaldi, M.T., Palmer, M., Felsenreich, D.M. et al. Robotic-assisted surgery training (RAST) program: module 1 of a three-module program. Assessment of patient cart docking skills and educational environment. Updates Surg 75, 825–835 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01485-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01485-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation