Simulation-Based Training in Robot-Assisted Surgery: Current Evidence of Value and Potential Trends for the Future

Current Urology Reports

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1-8

  Hanzly, Michael I ^a   Al Tartir, Tareq ^a   Raza, Syed Johar ^a   Khan, Atif ^a   Durrani, Mohammad Manan ^a   Fiorica, Thomas ^a   Ginsberg, Phillip ^b   Mohler, James L ^a   Kuvshinoff, Boris ^a   Guru, Khurshid A ^a  

^a ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Urologic Consultants of Southeastern PA   (United States)

Author keywords

Credentialing; Mentorship; Robot; Robot assisted; Robotic surgery; Training

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SURGICAL TRAINING; ANIMAL; EDUCATION; NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES; PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE;

ANIMALS; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84955167679     PISSN: 15272737     EISSN: 15346285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-015-0508-8     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Pinkerton S. The pros and cons of robotic surgery. Wallstreet J. 2013.
2. Alemzadeh HRKI, Raman J. Safety implications of robotic surgery: analysis of recalls and adverse event reports of da Vinci surgical systems. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 50th Annual Meeting; 2014; Orlando, Florida.
3. Guru KA. Editorial comment. J Urol. 2011;186(3):1024.
4. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, et al. Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators–a systematic review. BJU Int. 2013;111(2):194–205. First article that comprehensively compares the validation status of the available robotic surgery simulators. Details help identify the most validated simulator for training and development of robotic surgery skills.
5. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding GE, Guru KA. Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology. 2010;76(2):357–60.
6. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T, et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int. 2011;107(7):1130–5.
7. Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR, et al. Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology. 2013;81(4):767–74. Article validates the first novel virtual reality based robotic training curriculum, in randomized study. After completion of this curriculum, novice robotic surgeons improved robotic surgery skills on the daVinci inanimate tasks. The curriculum is incorporated within the RoSS simulator training structure.
8. Schreuder HW, Persson JE, Wolswijk RG, Ihse I, Schijven MP, Verheijen RH. Validation of a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Sci World J. 2014;2014:507076.
9. Egi H, Hattori M, Tokunaga M, et al. Face, content and concurrent validity of the Mimic(R) dV-Trainer for robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a prospective study. Eur Surg Res Eur Chirurg Forsch Rech Chirur Europee. 2013;50(3–4):292–300.
10. Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N, et al. The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer((R)) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(9):2587–93.
11. Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y, Sundaram CP. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol / Endourol Soc. 2009;23(3):503–8.
12. Kang SG, Ryu BJ, Yang KS, et al. An effective repetitive training schedule to achieve skill proficiency using a novel robotic virtual reality simulator. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(3):369--76.
13. Teishima J, Hattori M, Inoue S, et al. Retention of robot-assisted surgical skills in urological surgeons acquired using Mimic dV-Trainer. Can Urol Assoc J J Assoc Urol Can. 2014;8(7–8):E493–7.
14. Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann Roy College Surg Eng. 2011;93(2):152–156.
15. Feifer A, Al-Ammari A, Kovac E, Delisle J, Carrier S, Anidjar M. Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality and hybrid simulation for robotic surgical training. BJU Int. 2011;108(10):1652–6. discussion 1657. Study concluded that combined training on virtual reality and hybrid simulators improves robotic surgery skills on the daVinci tasks, versus either training methods alone.
16. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;186(3):1019–24.
17. Ramos P, Montez J, Tripp A, Ng CK, Gill IS, Hung AJ. Face, content, construct and concurrent validity of dry laboratory exercises for robotic training using a global assessment tool. BJU Int. 2014;113(5):836–42. Study validated inanimate tasks, for robotic surgery training, using the GEARS assessment tool. Study demonstrates that inanimate tasks can be used as an alternative to virtual reality simulation for training of robotic surgical skills.
18. Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P, et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol. 2012;187(2):630–7.
19. Chowriappa A, Raza SJ, Fazili A, et al. Augmented-reality-based skills training for robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis: a multi-institutional randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 2015;115(2):336–45 First study that reported use of augmented reality based training, for improvement of procedure specific robotic surgery skills.
20. Hung ASD, Wesley Y, Gill I. Augmented reality video submission for robotic partial nephrectomy surgery training- The next generation. J Urol. 2014;191(4):e132–3.
21. Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol. 2012;187(1):247–52. First validated instrument to assess generic robotic surgery skills. It is the ‘gold standard’ tool robotic skills assessment.
22. Goh A, Joseph R, O’Malley M, Miles B, Dunkin B. 1336 Development and validation of inaninmate tasks for robotic surgical skills assessment and training. J Urol. 2010;183(4, Supplement):e516.
23. Hung AJ, Jayaratna IS, Teruya K, Desai MM, Gill IS, Goh AC. Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int. 2013;112(6):864–71.
24. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, et al. Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(6):1516–21.
25. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, et al. Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery. 2012;152(3):477–88.
26. Eun D, Bhandari A, Boris R, et al. A novel technique for creating solid renal pseudotumors and renal vein-inferior vena caval pseudothrombus in a porcine and cadaveric model. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1510–4. Article describes a novel technique of making renal psuedotumors and their successful excision using the robot, in a porcine model. This model can help develop procedure specific skills for robot-assisted surgical training.
27. Hung AJ, Ng CK, Patil MB, et al. Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model. BJU Int. 2012;110(6):870–4.
28. Kiely DJ, Gotlieb WH, Jardon K, Lau S, Press JZ. Advancing surgical simulation in gynecologic oncology: robotic dissection of a novel pelvic lymphadenectomy model. Simulat Healthcare J Soc Simulat Healthcare. 2015;10(1):38–42.
29. Raza SJ, Field E, Jay C, et al. Surgical competency for urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: development and validation of the robotic anastomosis competency evaluation. Urology. 2015;85(1):27–32. First validated robotic skills assessment tool which is procedure specific, contrary to GEARS, which assesses generic skills. Article describes the content, concurrent and construct validity and reliability of the RACE.
30. Carter SC, Chiang A, Shah G, et al. Video-based peer feedback through social networking for robotic surgery simulation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Annal Surg. 2015;261(5):870–875.
31. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1434–42.
32. Raza SJ, Froghi S, Chowriappa A, et al. Construct validation of the key components of Fundamental Skills of Robotic Surgery (FSRS) curriculum–a multi-institution prospective study. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(3):316–24.
33. Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P, et al. Pilot validation study of the European association of urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.025.
34. Arain NA, Dulan G, Hogg DC, et al. Comprehensive proficiency-based inanimate training for robotic surgery: reliability, feasibility, and educational benefit. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(10):2740–5.
35. Moles JJ, Connelly PE, Sarti EE, Baredes S. Establishing a training program for residents in robotic surgery. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(10):1927–31.
36. Rashid HH, Leung YY, Rashid MJ, Oleyourryk G, Valvo JR, Eichel L. Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006;68(1):75–9.
37. Sachdeva AK. Acquiring skills in new procedures and technology: the challenge and the opportunity. Arch Surg. 2005;140(4):387–9.
38. Sachdeva AK. Acquisition and maintenance of surgical competence. Semin Vasc Surg. 2002;15(3):182–90.
39. Attalla K, Raza SJ, Rehman S, et al. Effectiveness of a dedicated robot-assisted surgery training program. Can J Urol. 2013;20(6):7084–90.
40. Herrell SD, Smith Jr JA. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology. 2005;66(5 Suppl):105–7.
41. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;170(5):1738–41.
42. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1191–7.
43. Hayn MH, Hussain A, Mansour AM, et al. The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International robotic cystectomy consortium. Eur Urol. 2010;58(2):197–202.
44. Guru KA, Esfahani ET, Raza SJ, Bhat R, Wang K, Hammond Y, Wilding G, Peabody JO, Chowriappa AJ. Cognitive skills assessment during robot-assisted surgery: separating the wheat from the chaff. BJU Int. 2015;115(1):166–174. Article describes the use of brain computer interface to determine cognitive skills of expert, intermediate and novice robotic surgeons. BCI can differentiate between robotic surgeons with variable level of experience, better than the conventional assessment tools.
45. Guru KBA, Kesavadas T, Kumar A, Srimathveeravalli G. In-vivo videos enhance cognitive skills for daVinci® surgical system. J Urol. 2009;181:823.
46. Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93(2):152–6.
47. McDonough P, Tausch T, Peterson A, Brand T. Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an objective measure of robotic task performance. J Robotic Surg. 2011;5(3):195–199.
48. Jonsson MNMM, Askerud T, et al. ProMISTM can serve as a da Vinci® simulator—a construct validity study. J Endourol / Endourol Soc. 2011;2011(25):345–50.
49. Lendvay TS, Casale P, Sweet R, Peters C. VR robotic surgery: randomized blinded study of the dV-Trainer robotic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;132:242–4.
50. Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ, Libertino JA, Moinzadeh A. Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology. 2009;73(6):1288–92.
51. Korets R GJ, Mues A, Gupta M, Landman J, Badani KK. Face and construct validity assessment of 2nd generation robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;185:e488.
52. Fiedler MJ, Chen SJ, Judkins TN, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N. Virtual reality for robotic laparoscopic surgical training. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;125:127–9.
53. Katsavelis DSK, Brown-Clerk B, et al. Validated robotic laparoscopic surgical training in a virtual-reality. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:66–73.
54. American Urologic Association. (www.aua.org) Standard Operating Practices (SOP’s) for Urologic Robotic Surgery, Accessed 11/15/ 2014.