Training Modalities in Robot-assisted Urologic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT Novel surgical techniques demand that surgical training adapts to the need for technical and nontechnical skills. OBJECTIVE To identify training methods available for robot-assisted surgical (RAS) training in urology, evaluate their effectiveness in terms of validation, educational impact, acceptability, and cost effectiveness, and assess their effect on learning curves (LCs). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines searched Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Results were screened to include appropriate studies. Quality was evaluated. Each method was evaluated, and conclusions were drawn regarding LCs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Of 359 records, 24 were included (521 participants). Training methods included dry-lab training (n=7), wet-lab training (n=7), mentored training (n=7), and nonstructured pathways (n=5). Dry-lab training demonstrated educational impact by reducing console time and was acceptable in a study; 100% of participants confirmed face validity. Wet-lab training principally uses human cadaveric material; effectiveness is well rated, although dry-lab training and observation were rated as equally useful. Mentored programmes combine lectures, tutorials, observation, simulation, and proctoring. Minifellowships were linked to greater practice of RAS 1 yr later. LCs vary according to experience. One study found that surgeons from robot-related fellowships demonstrated fewer positive surgical margins than surgeons from laparoscopic-related fellowships (24% vs 34.6%; p=0.05) and reduced time (132 vs 152min; p=0.0003). Five studies examined nonstructured training pathways (clinical practice). Experience correlated with fewer complications (p=0.007), improved continence (p=0.049), and reduced time (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS RAS training methods include dry and wet lab, mentored training, and nonstructured pathways. Limited available evidence suggests that they affect LCs differently and are rarely used alone. The different methods of training appear effective when combined. Their benefits must be explored to facilitate validated acceptable training with educational impact. PATIENT SUMMARY Robot-assisted training encompasses several methods used in combination, but more evidence is required to gain the greatest benefit and formulate future training pathways.

[1]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[2]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Including Non‐Randomized Studies , 2008 .

[3]  E. Hundert,et al.  Defining and assessing professional competence. , 2002, JAMA.

[4]  J. Moul,et al.  Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. , 2008, Urology.

[5]  G. Barbash,et al.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  M. Boehler,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic skills development: formal versus informal training. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[7]  M. Wirth,et al.  Re: Vincenzo Ficarra, Giacomo Novara, Raymond C. Rosen, et al. systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405-17. , 2013, European urology.

[8]  J. Eastham,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[9]  Prokar Dasgupta,et al.  Robotic urological surgery , 2010, Robotica.

[10]  P. Dasgupta,et al.  Urology training: past, present and future , 2012, BJU international.

[11]  R. Abaza,et al.  Contribution of laparoscopic training to robotic proficiency. , 2013, Journal of endourology.

[12]  Prokar Dasgupta,et al.  Measuring the surgical ‘learning curve’: methods, variables and competency , 2014, BJU international.

[13]  M. Heckman,et al.  Prospective evaluation of factors affecting operating time in a residency/fellowship training program incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. , 2008, Journal of endourology.

[14]  Prokar Dasgupta,et al.  Pilot Validation Study of the European Association of Urology Robotic Training Curriculum. , 2015, European urology.

[15]  Prokar Dasgupta,et al.  Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts , 2015, BJU international.

[16]  T. Ahlering,et al.  Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[17]  T. Gianduzzo,et al.  Preliminary results of robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) after fellowship training and experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) , 2012, BJU international.

[18]  Howard Jung,et al.  Rapid implementation of a robot-assisted prostatectomy program in a large health maintenance organization setting. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[19]  Robert M. Sweet,et al.  Robotic Surgical Education: a Collaborative Approach to Training Postgraduate Urologists and Endourology Fellows , 2009, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[20]  Ashutosh Tewari,et al.  Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[21]  H. Ashrafian,et al.  Healthcare-biotech symbiosis. , 2009, Nature biotechnology.

[22]  A. Goh,et al.  Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[23]  Geoffrey N. Box,et al.  Long-term impact of a robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mini fellowship training program on postgraduate urological practice patterns. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[24]  Prokar Dasgupta,et al.  Structured and Modular Training Pathway for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP): Validation of the RARP Assessment Score and Learning Curve Assessment. , 2016, European urology.

[25]  Howard Jung,et al.  Impact of robotic training on surgical and pathologic outcomes during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2010, Urology.

[26]  J. Mead Trends in surgical litigation claims , 2014 .

[27]  John W. Davis,et al.  Initial experience of teaching robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy to surgeons‐in‐training: can training be evaluated and standardized? , 2010, BJU international.

[28]  T. Ahlering,et al.  Short‐term impact of a robot‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy ‘mini‐residency’ experience on postgraduate urologists' practice patterns , 2006, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[29]  P. Stricker,et al.  Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. , 2014, European urology.

[30]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[31]  John W. Davis,et al.  Effectiveness of postgraduate training for learning extraperitoneal access for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2011, Journal of endourology.

[32]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[33]  A. Darzi,et al.  Robotic prostatectomy: the first UK experience , 2006, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[34]  H. Cho,et al.  Experience With Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy at a Secondary Training Hospital: Operation Time, Treatment Outcomes, and Complications With the Accumulation of Experience , 2013, Korean journal of urology.

[35]  J. Pepper,et al.  No time to train the surgeons , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[36]  Khurshid A Guru,et al.  Comparative analysis of global practice patterns in urologic robot-assisted surgery. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[37]  C. Benjamin,et al.  Surgical complications after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial 1000 cases stratified by the clavien classification system. , 2012, Journal of endourology.

[38]  Jennifer Priestley,et al.  Predictive Validity of a Training Protocol Using a Robotic Surgery Simulator , 2014, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[39]  Ara Darzi,et al.  Assessment and maintenance of competence in urology , 2010, Nature Reviews Urology.

[40]  M. Schijven,et al.  Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review , 2012, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[41]  Markus Graefen,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[42]  Prokar Dasgupta,et al.  MENTORSHIP PROGRAMMES FOR LAPAROSCOPIC AND ROBOTIC UROLOGY , 2011, BJU international.

[43]  E. O. Oshiro,et al.  Key areas in the learning curve for robotic urological surgery: a Spanish multicentre survey. , 2011 .

[44]  N. Hinata,et al.  Dry box training with three‐dimensional vision for the assistant surgeon in robot‐assisted urological surgery , 2013, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[45]  C. V. D. Vleuten,et al.  The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications , 1996 .

[46]  T. P. Wright,et al.  Factors affecting the cost of airplanes , 1936 .

[47]  L. Eichel,et al.  Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2006, Urology.

[48]  Prokar Dasgupta,et al.  An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. , 2015, International journal of surgery.

[49]  T. Igel,et al.  Simulation-based training for bedside assistants can benefit experienced robotic prostatectomy teams. , 2013, Journal of endourology.