Evaluation of midlevel and upper-level residents performing their first robotic-sutured intestinal anastomosis

American Journal of Surgery

Volumn 195, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 333-338

  Marecik, Slawomir J ^a,b,c   Prasad, Leela M ^a,b,c   Park, John J ^a,b,c   Jan, Azam ^c   Chaudhry, Vivek ^b  

^a ADVOCATE LUTHERAN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^c Metropolitan Group Hospitals Residency in General Surgery   (United States)

Author keywords

Haptic; Learning curve; Resident education; Robotic training; Teaching

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EVALUATION; EX VIVO STUDY; HUMAN; INTESTINE ANASTOMOSIS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESIDENCY EDUCATION; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SUTURE; SUTURING METHOD; ANASTOMOSIS; ANIMAL; ANIMAL MODEL; CLINICAL TRIAL; EDUCATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SMALL INTESTINE; SURGERY; SWINE;

ADULT; ANASTOMOSIS, SURGICAL; ANIMALS; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, GRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HUMANS; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; INTESTINE, SMALL; MODELS, ANIMAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTICS; SURGERY; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; SWINE;

EID: 40749145319     PISSN: 00029610     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.12.013     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Patel V.R., Thaly R., and Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int 99 (2007) 1109-1112
2. Woo Y.J. Robotic cardiac surgery. Int J Med Robot 2 (2006) 225-232
3. Gorodner V., Horgan S., Galvani C., et al. Routine left robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and effective regardless of the presence of vascular anomalies. Transpl Int 19 (2006) 636-640
4. Giulianotti P.C., Coratti A., Angelini M., et al. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138 (2003) 777-784
5. Pigazzi A., Ellenhorn J.D., Ballantyne G.H., et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 20 (2006) 1521-1525
6. Marecik S.J., Chaudhry V., Jan A., et al. A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and hand-sewn intestinal sutured anastomoses performed by residents. Am J Surg 193 (2007) 349-355
7. Patel Y.R., Donias H.W., Boyd D.W., et al. Are you ready to become a robo-surgeon?. Am Surg 69 (2003) 599-603
8. Heemskerk J., van Gemert W.G., de Vries J., et al. Learning curves of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery: an experimental study evaluating skill acquisition of robot-assisted laparoscopic tasks compared with conventional laparoscopic tasks in inexperienced users. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17 (2007) 171-174
9. Sarle R., Tewari A., Shrivastava A., et al. Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills. J Endourol 18 (2004) 63-67
10. Scott D.J., Young W.N., Tesfay S.T., et al. Laparoscopic skills training. Am J Surg 182 (2001) 137-142
11. Guru K.A., Kuvshinoff B.W., Pavlov-Shapiro S., et al. Impact of robotics and laparoscopy on surgical skills: a comparative study. J Am Coll Surg 204 (2007) 96-101
12. Halvorsen F.H., Elle O.J., Dalinin V.V., et al. Virtual reality simulator training equals mechanical robotic training in improving robot-assisted basic suturing skills. Surg Endosc 20 (2006) 1565-1569