Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction of robotic surgery does not negatively affect cardiothoracic surgery resident experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the educational impact following the implementation of a robotic thoracic surgery program on cardiothoracic (CT) surgery trainees. We hypothesized that the introduction of a robotic thoracic surgery program would adversely affect the CT surgery resident experience, decreasing operative involvement and subsequent competency of surgical procedures. CT surgery residents and thoracic surgery attendings from a single academic institution were administered a recurring, electronic survey from September 2019 to September 2020 following each robotic thoracic surgery case. Surveys evaluated resident involvement and operative performance. This study was exempt from review by our Institutional Review Board. Attendings and residents completed surveys for 86 and 75 cases, respectively. Residents performed > 50% of the operation independently at the surgeon console in 66.2 and 73.3% of cases according to attending and resident responses, respectively. The proportion of trainees able to perform > 75% of the operation increased with each increasing year in training (p = 0.002). Based on the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills grading tool, third-year residents averaged higher scores compared to first-year residents (22.9 versus 17.4 out of 30 possible points, p < 0.001), indicating that more extensive prior operative experience could shorten the learning curve of robotic thoracic surgery. CT surgery residents remain actively involved in an operative role during the establishment of a robotic thoracic surgery program. The transition to a robotic thoracic surgery platform appears feasible in a large academic setting without jeopardizing the educational experience of resident trainees.

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

References

  1. Kumar A, Asaf BB (2015) Robotic thoracic surgery: the state of the art. J Minim Access Surg 11(1):60–67. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.147693

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kent M, Wang T, Whyte R, Curran T, Flores R, Gangadharan S (2014) Open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: review of a national database. Ann Thorac Surg 97(1):236–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.07.117 (discussion 242-244)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nakamura H (2014) Systematic review of published studies on safety and efficacy of thoracoscopic and robot-assisted lobectomy for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 20(2):93–98. https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.ra.13-00314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Swanson SJ et al (2014) Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147(3):929–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.09.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rajaram R et al (2017) Nationwide assessment of robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 103(4):1092–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.09.108

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Subramanian MP et al (2019) Utilization trends, outcomes, and cost in minimally invasive lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.06.049

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kamel MK et al (2019) National trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic resection of thymic tumours in the United States: a propensity matching comparison with open and video-assisted thoracoscopic approaches. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 56(4):762–769. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Louie BE et al (2016) Comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and robotic approaches for clinical stage I and stage II non-small cell lung cancer using the society of thoracic surgeons database. Ann Thorac Surg 102(3):917–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.032

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Linsky PL, Wei B (2018) Training in robotic thoracic surgery. J Vis Surg 4:1–1. https://doi.org/10.21037/jovs.2017.12.12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS (2013) How to teach robotic pulmonary resection. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 25(1):76–82. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2013.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cerfolio RJ, Ferrari-Light D (2019) How to get the most out of your trainees in robotic thoracic surgery—“the coachability languages.” Ann Cardiothorac Surg 8(2):269–273. https://doi.org/10.21037/acs.2018.12.05

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sánchez R et al (2010) Robotic surgery training: construct validity of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). J Robot Surg 10(3):227–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0572-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bucholz EM, Sue GR, Yeo H, Roman SA, Bell RH, Sosa JA (2011) Our trainees’ confidence: results from a national survey of 4136 US general surgery residents. Arch Surg 146(8):907–914. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2011.178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mattar SG et al (2013) General surgery residency inadequately prepares trainees for fellowship: results of a survey of fellowship program directors. Ann Surg 258(3):440–449. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a191ca

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kempenich JW, Willis RE, Rakosi R, Wiersch J, Schenarts PJ (2015) How do perceptions of autonomy differ in general surgery training between faculty, senior residents, hospital administrators, and the general public? A multi-institutional study. J Surg Educ 72(6):e193–e201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.06.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wojcik BM et al (2017) Structured operative autonomy: an institutional approach to enhancing surgical resident education without impacting patient outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 225(6):713-724.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.08.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wojcik BM et al (2016) The resident-run minor surgery clinic: a pilot study to safely increase operative autonomy. J Surg Educ 73(6):e142–e149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.08.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cimen HI, Atik YT, Altinova S, Adsan O, Balbay MD (2019) Does the experience of the bedside assistant effect the results of robotic surgeons in the learning curve of robot assisted radical prostatectomy? Int Braz J Urol 45(1):54–60. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0184

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Nayyar R, Yadav S, Singh P, Dogra PN (2016) Impact of assistant surgeon on outcomes in robotic surgery. Indian J Urol 32(3):204–209. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.185095

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwon H (2020) Impact of bedside assistant on outcomes of robotic thyroid surgery: a STROBE-compliant retrospective case-control study. Medicine 99(36):e22133. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000022133

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hagen ME, Wagner OJ, Inan I, Morel P (2009) Impact of IQ, computer-gaming skills, general dexterity, and laparoscopic experience on performance with the da Vinci® surgical system. Int J Med Robot 5(3):327–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Finnerty BM, Afaneh C, Aronova A, Fahey TJ, Zarnegar R (2016) General surgery training and robotics: are residents improving their skills? Surg Endosc 30(2):567–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4240-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Anders Ericsson K (2008) Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general overview. Acad Emerg Med 15(11):988–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cook MR et al (2016) A disease-specific hybrid rotation increases opportunities for deliberate practice. J Surg Educ 73(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12631 E. 17th Ave, MS C-302, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Anna K. Gergen, Brandon M. Wojcik, Allana M. White, John D. Mitchell, Robert A. Meguid, Christopher D. Scott & Michael J. Weyant

  2. Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research (ACCORDS), University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12631 E. 17th Ave, MS C-302, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Robert A. Meguid

Authors
  1. Anna K. Gergen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brandon M. Wojcik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allana M. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John D. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert A. Meguid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher D. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael J. Weyant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AKG, BMW, and AMW contributed to literature search, study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing, and critical revision. JDM, RAM, CDS, and MJW contributed to data collection, data interpretation, and critical revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna K. Gergen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Christopher D. Scott reports personal fees from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Anna K. Gergen, Brandon M. Wojcik, Allana M. White, John D. Mitchell, Robert A. Meguid, and Michael J. Weyant have no conflict of interest to report.

Ethics approval

This study was exempt from review by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Consent to participate

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gergen, A.K., Wojcik, B.M., White, A.M. et al. Introduction of robotic surgery does not negatively affect cardiothoracic surgery resident experience. J Robotic Surg 16, 393–400 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01255-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01255-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation