• Joo-Yup Lee
  • Alexander Y. ShinEmail author


The use of robotic surgical system to assist surgeons in performing microvascular anastomosis has raised important issues regarding surgical training and assessment. In conventional microsurgery, attending microsurgical training courses has become the gold standard for practical skill acquisition. Among various assessments of training, the global rating scale of objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) has consistently found to be valid and reliable. The learning curve can be defined as an improvement in performance with experience and practice. This improvement tends to be more rapid at first and then decreases over time as the curve reaches a plateau. It has been demonstrated that the important aspects of learning curve including the learning plateau and the learning rate can be estimated by statistical method. Understanding the parameters of learning curve is important to establish a robotic microsurgery training program. Training and assessment for robotic-assisted microsurgery is a complex procedure, and these need to be accompanied by constructive feedback from experienced microsurgeons. The guidelines and recommendations for preceptoring robotic-assisted microsurgery will be necessary to ensure the safety of patients and surgeons while initiating a robotic microsurgery program in the future.


  1. 1.
    Atkins JL, Kalu PU, Lannon DA et al (2005) Training in microsurgical skills: does course-based learning deliver? Microsurgery 25:481–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balasundaram I, Aggarwal R, Darzi LA (2010) Development of a training curriculum for microsurgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:598–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bull C, Yates R, Sarkar D et al (2000) Scientific, ethical, and logistical considerations in introducing a new operation: a retrospective cohort study from paediatric cardiac surgery. BMJ 320:1168–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chan WY, Matteucci P, Southern SJ (2007) Validation of microsurgical models in microsurgery training and competence: a review. Microsurgery 27:494–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuschieri A, Francis N, Crosby J et al (2001) What do master surgeons think of surgical competence and revalidation? Am J Surg 182:110–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damiano RJ Jr, Reichenspurner H, Ducko CT (2000) Robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting: current state of the art. Adv Card Surg 12:37–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Ugarte DA, Etzioni DA, Gracia C et al (2003) Robotic surgery and resident training. Surg Endosc 17:960–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Figert PL, Park AE, Witzke DB et al (2001) Transfer of training in acquiring laparoscopic skills. J Am Coll Surg 193:533–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karamanoukian RL, Bui T, McConnell MP et al (2006) Transfer of training in robotic-assisted microvascular surgery. Ann Plast Surg 57:662–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karamanoukian RL, Finley DS, Evans GR et al (2006) Feasibility of robotic-assisted microvascular anastomoses in plastic surgery. J Reconstr Microsurg 22:429–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katz RD, Rosson GD, Taylor JA et al (2005) Robotics in microsurgery: use of a surgical robot to perform a free flap in a pig. Microsurgery 25:566–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein I, Steger U, Timmermann W et al (2003) Microsurgical training course for clinicians and scientists at a German University hospital: a 10-year experience. Microsurgery 23:461–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Le Roux PD, Das H, Esquenazi S et al (2001) Robot-assisted microsurgery: a feasibility study in the rat. Neurosurgery 48:584–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R et al (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84:273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mavroforou A, Michalodimitrakis E, Hatzitheo-Filou C et al (2010) Legal and ethical issues in robotic surgery. Int Angiol 29:75–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nectoux E, Taleb C, Liverneaux P (2009) Nerve repair in telemicrosurgery: an experimental study. J Reconstr Microsurg 25:261–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen PE, Foglia LM, Mandel LS et al (2003) Objective structured assessment of technical skills for episiotomy repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1257–1260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA et al (2001) Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 5:1–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reznick RK (1993) Teaching and testing technical skills. Am J Surg 165:358–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rutkow IM (1978) William Stewart Halsted and the Germanic influence on education and training programs in surgery. Surg Gynecol Obstet 147:602–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siddiqui NY, Stepp KJ, Lasch SJ et al (2008) Objective structured assessment of technical skills for repair of fourth-degree perineal lacerations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:671–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swift SE, Carter JF (2006) Institution and validation of an observed structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) for obstetrics and gynecology residents and faculty. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:617–621; discussion 621–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taleb C, Nectoux E, Liverneaux PA (2008) Telemicrosurgery: a feasibility study in a rat model. Chir Main 27:104–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taleb C, Nectoux E, Liverneaux P (2009) Limb replantation with two robots: a feasibility study in a pig model. Microsurgery 29:232–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tamai S (2009) History of microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:e282–e294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    VanBlaricom AL, Goff BA, Chinn M et al (2005) A new curriculum for hysteroscopy training as demonstrated by an objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS). Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:1856–1865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL et al (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations