Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 435–447 | Cite as

The value of a 1-day multidisciplinary robot surgery training for novice robot surgeons

  • Alexander. J. W. BeulensEmail author
  • Willem M. Brinkman
  • Petra J. Porte
  • Richard P. Meijer
  • Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
  • Henk G. Van der Poel
  • Cordula Wagner
Original Article
  • 103 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

To fulfil the need for a basic level of competence in robotic surgery (Brinkman et al., Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31(1):281–287, 2017; Dutch Health inspectorate (Inspectie voor de gezondheidszorg), Insufficient carefulness at the introduction of surgical robots (in Dutch: Onvoldoende zorgvuldigheid bij introductie van operatierobots), Igz, Utrecht, 2010), the NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Healthcare Research) developed the ‘Basic proficiency requirements for the safe use of robotic surgery’ (BPR). Based on the BPR a 1-day robotic surgery training was organised to answer the following research questions: (1) Are novice robot surgeons able to accurately self-assess their knowledge and dexterity skills? (2) Is it possible to include the teaching of all BPRs in a 1-day training?

Materials and methods

Based on the BPR, a robot surgery course was developed for residents and specialists (surgery, gynaecology and urology). In preparation, the participants completed an online e-module. The 1-day training consisted of a practical part on robot set-up, a theoretical section, and hands-on exercises on virtual reality robot simulators. Multiple online questionnaire was filled out by the participants at the end of the training to evaluate the perceived educational value of the course and to self-assess the degree to which BPRs were reached.

Results

20 participants completed the training during the conference of the Dutch Association for Endoscopic Surgery (NVEC) in 2017. Participants indicated nearly all competency requirements were mastered at the end of the training. The competency requirements not mastered were, however, critical requirements for the safe use of the surgical robot. Skill simulation results show a majority of participants are unable to reach a proficient simulation score in basic skill simulation exercises.

Conclusion

Results show novice robot surgeons are too positive in the self-assessment of their own dexterity skills after a 1-day training. Self-assessment revealed uncertainty of the obtained knowledge level on requirements for the safe use of the surgical robot. Basic courses on robotic training should inform trainees about their results to enhance learning and inform them of their competence levels.

Keywords

Training Robot surgery Robot simulation Novice Skill assessment 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Drs. Beulens, Dr. Brinkman, Dr. Meijer, Dr. van Merrienboer, Dr. van der Poel, and Dr. Wagner have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Porte reports grants from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, during the conduct of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Brinkman W, de Angst I, Schreuder H, Schout B, Draaisma W, Verweij L et al (2017) Current training on the basics of robotic surgery in the Netherlands: time for a multidisciplinary approach? Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31(1):281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dutch Health inspectorate (Inspectie voor de gezondheidszorg) (2010) Insufficient carefulness at the introduction of surgical robots (in Dutch: Onvoldoende zorgvuldigheid bij introductie van operatierobots). Igz, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khan R, Aydin A, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2015) Simulation-based training for prostate surgery. BJU Int 116(4):665–674.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12721 (cited 2018 Mar 27) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(6):1121–1134.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 (cited 2018 Mar 22) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hadjipavlou M, Khan F, Fowler S, Joyce A, Keeley FX, Sriprasad S (2016) Partial vs radical nephrectomy for T1 renal tumours: an analysis from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Nephrectomy Audit. BJU Int 117(1):62–71.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13114 (cited 2017 Jan 7) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jaeken M, Zech E, Brison C, Verhofstadt LL, Van Broeck N, Mikolajczak M (2017) Helpers’ self-assessment biases before and after helping skills training. Front Psychol 8:1377. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28861015. Accessed 22 Mar 2018
  7. 7.
    Porte PJ, Verweij LM, Bekkers RLM, Consten ECJ, Lichtenberg H, van der Poel HG, van Swol CFP, Wagner C (2017) Robotic surgery for medical specialists, basic proficiency requirements for the safe use of robotic surgery. NIVEL/EMGO+, Utrecht. https://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/Roboticsurgery_MedicalSpecialists.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2017
  8. 8.
    Smith R, Patel V, Satava R (2014) Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 10(3):379–384.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1559. (cited 2017 Aug 17) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A, Lovegrove C, Abaza R, Ahlawat R et al (2015) Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int 116(1):93–101. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25359658. Accessed 25 Sep 2017
  10. 10.
    Wiener S, Haddock P, Shichman S, Dorin R (2015) Construction of a urologic robotic surgery training curriculum: how many simulator sessions are required for residents to achieve proficiency? J Endourol 29(11):1289–1293. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26154108. Accessed 5 Dec 2017
  11. 11.
    Mimic Technologies Inc. (2016) dv Trainer by MIMIC, User Guide. Rev 3.5Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krueger J, Mueller RA (2002) Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance. J Pers Soc Psychol 82(2):180–188. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11831408. Accessed 23 Mar 2018
  13. 13.
    Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N, Jehl J-P, Felblinger J, Bresler L et al (2012) The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer® is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26(9):2587–2593.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2237-0 (cited 2017 Aug 9) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schreuder HWR, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP, Schijven MP, Verheijen RHM (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119(2):137–149.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03139.x (cited 2017 Dec 5) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander. J. W. Beulens
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Willem M. Brinkman
    • 3
  • Petra J. Porte
    • 1
    • 7
  • Richard P. Meijer
    • 4
  • Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
    • 5
  • Henk G. Van der Poel
    • 6
  • Cordula Wagner
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL)UtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of UrologyCatharina HospitalEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of UrologyErasmus Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Oncological UrologyUniversity Medical Centre UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.School of Health Professions EducationMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of UrologyDutch Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations