Evolution of a Novel Robotic Training Curriculum in a Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship
- 305 Downloads
Robotic surgery is increasingly being used for complex oncologic operations, although currently there is no standardized curriculum in place for surgical oncologists. We describe the evolution of a proficiency-based robotic training program implemented for surgical oncology fellows, and demonstrate the outcomes of the program.
A 5-step robotic curriculum began integration in July 2013. Fellows from July 2013 to August 2017 were included. An education portfolio was created for each fellow, including pre-fellowship experience, fellowship experience with data from robotic curriculum and operative experience, and post-fellowship practice information.
Of 30 fellows, 20% completed a prior fellowship, 97% trained at an academic residency, 57% had prior robotic training (median 5 h), and 43% had performed robotic surgery (median 0 cases). In fellowship, on average, fellows spent 5 h on the virtual reality curriculum and performed 19 biotissue anastomoses. For total surgeries, fellows operating from the console increased over time (p = 0.005). For pancreas, the average percentage of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) steps completed increased (p < 0.011), as did the number of PDs in which the fellow completed the entire resection (p = 0.013). Fellows were 10 times more likely to complete the entire distal than PD from the console (p < 0.01). Post-fellowship, 83% of fellows obtained an academic position, 88% utilized robotics, and 91% performed pancreatic surgery.
With dedicated training, fellows can safely primarily perform complex gastrointestinal robotic surgeries and, after graduation, take jobs incorporating this skill set. In this era of scrutiny on cost and outcomes, specialized training programs offer a safe integration option for complex technical skills.
Melissa E. Hogg receives funding from the Veterans Affairs in the way of salary support, and has received grant funding from SAGES and Intuitive Surgical.
- 9.Melich G, Hong YK, Kim J, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, et al. Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(3):558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hogg ME, Besselink MG, Clavien PA, Fingerhut A, Jeyarajah DR, Kooby DA, et al. Minimally invasive pancreatic resection organizing committee. training in minimally invasive pancreatic resections: a paradigm shift away from “see one, do one, teach one”. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(3):234–245.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Ocuin LM, Miller-Ocuin JL, Novak SM, Bartlett DL, Marsh JW, Tsung A, et al. Robotic and open distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection for locally advanced pancreatic body tumors: a single institutional assessment of perioperative outcomes and survival. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18(10):835–842.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 37.Polanco PM, Zenati MS, Hogg ME, Shakir M, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, et al. An analysis of risk factors for pancreatic fistula after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: outcomes from a consecutive series of standardized pancreatic reconstructions. Surg Endos. 2016;30(4):1523–1529.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 39.de Rooij T, van Hilst J, Topal B, Bosscha K, Brinkman DJ, Gerhards MF, et al. Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Outcomes of a Multicenter Training Program in Laparoscopic Pancreatoduodenectomy (LAELAPS-2). Ann Surg. Epub 2 Nov 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002563.