Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 12, pp 3445–3452 | Cite as

Evolution of a Novel Robotic Training Curriculum in a Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship

  • L. Mark Knab
  • Mazen S. Zenati
  • Anton Khodakov
  • Maryjoe Rice
  • Amr Al-abbas
  • David L. Bartlett
  • Amer H. Zureikat
  • Herbert J. Zeh
  • Melissa E. HoggEmail author
Health Services Research and Global Oncology



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.


  1. 1.
    Semm K. Pelviscopic appendectomy [in German]. Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift. 1988;113(1):3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reynolds W Jr. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2001;5(1):89–94.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Ellison EC. Robotic resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendos Adv Surg Tech Part A 2003;13(1):33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 2010;24(7):1646–1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park SS, Kim MC, Park MS, Hyung WJ. Rapid adaptation of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 2012;26(1):60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park EJ, Cho MS, Baek SJ, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee HH, Hur H, Jung H, Jeon HM, Park CH, Song KY. Robot-assisted distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: initial experience. Am J Surg. 2011;201(6):841–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sng KK, Hara M, Shin JW, Yoo BE, Yang KS, Kim SH. The multiphasic learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3297–3307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, Chou WH, Lai HS, Liang JT, et al. Robotic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched comparison. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(4):1021–1028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, Gillespie TW, Weber SM, Abbott DE, et al. A Multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open Pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;264(4):640–649.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, Oerline M, Carlin AM, Nunn AR, et al. Michigan bariatric surgery collaborative. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1434–1442.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hogg ME, Zenati M, Novak S, Chen Y, Jun Y, Steve J, et al. Grading of Surgeon Technical performance predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula for pancreaticoduodenectomy independent of patient-related variables. Ann Surg. 2016;264(3):482–491.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(22):2117–2127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McMillan MT, Malleo G, Bassi C, Sprys MH, Vollmer CM Jr. Defining the practice of pancreatoduodenectomy around the world. HPB. 2015;17(12):1145–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Wilde RF, Besselink MG, van der Tweel I, de Hingh IH, van Eijck CH, Dejong CH, et al. Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality. Br J Surg. 2012;99(3):404–410.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tseng JF, Pisters PW, Lee JE, Wang H, Gomez HF, Sun CC, et al. The learning curve in pancreatic surgery. Surgery. 2007;141(4):456–463.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, Steve J, Moser AJ, Bartlett DL, et al. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(5):416–422.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Raptis DA, Clavien PA; International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) Education and Training Committee. Evaluation of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) fellowships: an international survey of programme directors. HPB (Oxford). 2011;13(4):279–285.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeyarajah DR, Berman RS, Doyle M, Geevarghese SK, Posner MC, Farmer D, et al. Consensus Conference on North American training in hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery: a review of the conference and presentation of consensus statements. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(7):2153–2160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    King JC, Zeh HJ 3rd, Zureikat AH, Celebrezze J, Holtzman MP, Stang ML, et al. Safety in numbers: progressive implementation of a robotics program in an academic surgical oncology practice. Surg Innov. 2016;23(4):407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hogg ME, Tam V, Zenati M, Novak S, Miller J, Zureikat AH, et al. Mastery-based virtual reality robotic simulation curriculum: the first step toward operative robotic proficiency. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(3):477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tam V, Zenati M, Novak S, Chen Y, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ 3rd, et al. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy biotissue curriculum has validity and improves technical performance for surgical oncology fellows. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(6):1057–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mehaffey JH, Michaels AD, Mullen MG, Yount KW, Meneveau MO, Smith PW, et al. Adoption of robotics in a general surgery residency program: at what cost? J Surg Res. 2017;213:269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Farivar BS, Flannagan M, Leitman IM. General surgery residents’ perception of robot-assisted procedures during surgical training. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(2):235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith R, Patel V, Satava R. 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. 2014;10(3):379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, et al. SAGES FLS Committee. Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery. 2004;135(1):21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M, Sigman HH, Barkun JS, Meakins JL. Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 1998;175(6):482–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, Fried GM, Mellinger JD, Trus T, Kaneva P, et al. Fundamentals of endoscopic surgery: creation and validation of the hands-on test. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(3):704–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fisher WE, Hodges SE, Wu MF, Hilsenbeck SG, Brunicardi FC. Assessment of the learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg. 2012;203(6):684–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Magge D, Zenati M, Lutfi W, Hamad A, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ, et al. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy at an experienced institution is not associated with an increased risk of post-pancreatic hemorrhage. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20(5):448–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hamad A, Zenati MS, Nguyen TK, Hogg ME, Zeh HJ 3rd, Zureikat AH. Safety and feasibility of the robotic platform in the management of surgical sequelae of chronic pancreatitis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):1056–1065.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Girgis MD, Zenati MS, Steve J, Bartlett DL, Zureikat A, Zeh HJ, et al. Robotic approach mitigates perioperative morbidity in obese patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(2):93–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 36.
    Dhir M, Magge D, Novak S, Bartlett DL, Zureikat AH. Robotic-assisted placement of an hepatic artery infusion pump and catheter for regional chemotherapy of the liver. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23 Suppl 5:755–756.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 38.
    Zeh HJ 3rd, Bartlett DL, Moser AJ. Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection. Adv Surg. 2011;45:323–340.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Mark Knab
    • 1
  • Mazen S. Zenati
    • 1
  • Anton Khodakov
    • 1
  • Maryjoe Rice
    • 1
  • Amr Al-abbas
    • 1
  • David L. Bartlett
    • 1
  • Amer H. Zureikat
    • 1
  • Herbert J. Zeh
    • 2
  • Melissa E. Hogg
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Surgical OncologyUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Texas SouthwesternDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations