Advertisement

A robotic teaching session: separating tool from technique to emphasize a cognitive focused teaching environment

  • Courtney A. Green
  • Patricia S. O’Sullivan
  • Hueylan Chern
Original Article

Abstract

Most robotic curriculum requires simulation on a console prior to operative exposure. This practice does not permit experiencing the physical collisions with the robotic tools, which occurs during surgery. We designed and evaluated an innovative curriculum to address cognitive components and trouble-shoot robotic collisions when the surgeon lacks haptic feedback. We adapted our previous curriculum, designed to teach and document proficiency of robotic docking and instrument exchange, to include robotic collisions. Participants received a 10-min, didactic presentation describing finger grips, internal and external collisions, and instruction on how to trouble-shoot each type. Residents worked in pairs, one at the console and the other at bedside, to complete two simulation exercises. Participants manipulated the robot to determine how best to resolve the situations. Residents completed retrospective post-course surveys and instructors completed a final survey. For comparison, non-participants, PGY-matched surgical trainees, also completed a survey. All participants demonstrated proficiency in docking and instrument exchange. Compared to pre-session, post-session knowledge and confidence improved in five domains reflecting session objectives (p < 0.05). Participants could list and troubleshoot collisions more than the non-participant matched peers (p < 0.05). Instructors supported the additional collision components, but noted learners needed more time. Two of three non-participants expressed interest in a teaching session to address these components. Collisions occur using robotic technology and rarely get addressed in surgical training. We describe an opportunity for surgeons to trouble-shoot robotic collisions in a safe, simulated environment. This easily transferable curriculum represents one of the first industry-independent robotic teaching sessions for surgical trainees.

Keywords

Surgical education Robotic surgery Resident training Integrating robotic technology 

Notes

Funding

This work received no financial support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors (Courtney A Green, MD, Patricia S. O’Sullivan, EdD and Hueylan Chern, MD) declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval has been deemed “Exempt” by the University of California, San Francisco Human Research Protection Program’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). (IRB # 17-23095; Reference # 200241, 10/02/2017).

References

  1. 1.
    Ratnapalan S, Uleryk E (2014) Organizational learning in health care organizations. Systems 2:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cousins JB, Earl LM (1992) The case for participatory evaluation. Educ Eval Policy Anal 14(4):397–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Green CA, Abrahamson D, Chern H, O’Sullivan P (2018) Is robotic surgery highlighting critical gaps in resident training? J Grad Med Educ 10(5):491–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green CA, Chern H, Sullivan P (2018) Current robotic curricula for surgery residents: a need for additional cognitive and psychomotor focus. Am J Surg 215(2):277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao CGL, Taylor H (2004) Effects of new technology on the operating room team. In: Work with computer system, pp 309–312,Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evans CH, Schenarts KD (2016) Evolving educational techniques in surgical training. Surg Clin N Am 96(1):71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bashankaev B, Baido S, Wexner SD (2011) Review of available methods of simulation training to facilitate surgical education. Surg Endosc 25:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samia H, Khan S, Lawrence J, Delaney CP (2013) Simulation and its role in training. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 26(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsuda S, Scott D, Doyle J, Jones DB (2009) Surgical skills training and simulation. Curr Probl Surg 46(4):271–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Willis RE, Van Sickle KR (2015) Current status of simulation-based training in graduate medical education. Surg Clin N Am 95(4):767–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scott DJ, Pugh CM, Ritter EM, Jacobs LM, Pellegrini CA, Sachdeva AK (2011) New directions in simulation-based surgical education and training: validation and transfer of surgical skills, use of nonsurgeons as faculty, use of simulation to screen and select surgery residents, and long-term follow-up of learners. Surgery 149(6):735–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cox T, Seymour N (2015) Moving the needle: simulation’s impact on patient outcomes. Surg Clin N Am 95:827–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooke D et al (2017) Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 306(9):978–988Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stefanidis D et al (2015) Simulation in surgery: what’s needed next? Ann Surg 261(5):846–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumar A, Smith R, Patel VR (2015) Current status of robotic simulators in acquisition of robotic surgical skills. Curr Opin Urol 25(2):168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Antonoff MB, Swanson JA, Green CA, Mann BD, Maddaus MA, D’Cunha J (2012) The significant impact of a competency-based preparatory course for senior medical students entering surgical residency. Acad Med 87(3):308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations