Outcomes from the Delphi process of the Thoracic Robotic Curriculum Development Committee

OBJECTIVES As the adoption of robotic procedures becomes more widespread, additional risk related to the learning curve can be expected. This article reports the results of a Delphi process to define procedures to optimize robotic training of thoracic surgeons and to promote safe performance of established robotic interventions as, for example, lung cancer and thymoma surgery. METHODS In June 2016, a working panel was spontaneously created by members of the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) with a specialist interest in robotic thoracic surgery and/or surgical training. An e-consensus-finding exercise using the Delphi methodology was applied requiring 80% agreement to reach consensus on each question. Repeated iterations of anonymous voting continued over 3 rounds. RESULTS Agreement was reached on many points: a standardized robotic training curriculum for robotic thoracic surgery should be divided into clearly defined sections as a staged learning pathway; the basic robotic curriculum should include a baseline evaluation, an e-learning module, a simulation-based training (including virtual reality simulation, Dry lab and Wet lab) and a robotic theatre (bedside) observation. Advanced robotic training should include e-learning on index procedures (right upper lobe) with video demonstration, access to video library of robotic procedures, simulation training, modular console training to index procedure, transition to full-procedure training with a proctor and final evaluation of the submitted video to certified independent examiners. CONCLUSIONS Agreement was reached on a large number of questions to optimize and standardize training and education of thoracic surgeons in robotic activity. The production of the content of the learning material is ongoing.

[1]  Omaira Rodríguez,et al.  Robotic surgery training: construct validity of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) , 2016, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[2]  R. Cerfolio,et al.  Initial consecutive experience of completely portal robotic pulmonary resection with 4 arms. , 2011, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[3]  A. Darzi,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system , 2004, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[4]  Cesar Santiago,et al.  Structured training and competence assessment in colorectal robotic surgery. Results of a consensus experts round table , 2016, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[5]  R. Kratzke,et al.  Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is more favorable than thoracotomy for resection of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. , 2007, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  R. Cerfolio,et al.  Incidence, Results, and Our Current Intraoperative Technique to Control Major Vascular Injuries During Minimally Invasive Robotic Thoracic Surgery. , 2016, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[7]  P. Licht,et al.  Postoperative pain and quality of life after lobectomy via video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or anterolateral thoracotomy for early stage lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial. , 2016, The Lancet. Oncology.

[8]  R. Flores,et al.  Cost comparison of robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery and thoracotomy approaches to pulmonary lobectomy. , 2008, Thoracic surgery clinics.

[9]  K. Papagiannopoulos,et al.  Major morbidity after video-assisted thoracic surgery lung resections: a comparison between the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons definition and the Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality system. , 2015, Journal of thoracic disease.

[10]  F. Gharagozloo,et al.  Robot-assisted lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer: report of 100 consecutive cases. , 2009, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  M. Dylewski,et al.  Pulmonary resection using a total endoscopic robotic video-assisted approach. , 2011, Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[12]  G. Gravlee Four-arm robotic lobectomy for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer , 2011 .

[13]  N. Altorki,et al.  Lobectomy in octogenarians with non-small cell lung cancer: ramifications of increasing life expectancy and the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. , 2011, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[14]  D. Boffa,et al.  Hospital Volume and Outcomes of Robot‐Assisted Lobectomies , 2017, Chest.

[15]  A F Monk,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF THE LEARNING CURVE IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[16]  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.

[17]  A. Mussi,et al.  Robotically assisted lobectomy: learning curve and complications. , 2008, Thoracic surgery clinics.

[18]  A. Mussi,et al.  Robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): long-term oncologic results. , 2012, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[19]  Teodor P Grantcharov,et al.  A consensus-based framework for design, validation, and implementation of simulation-based training curricula in surgery. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.