General Surgery Residents’ Perception of Robot-Assisted Procedures During Surgical Training

• Published in: Journal of surgical education Vol. 72; no. 2; pp. 235 - 242
• Main Authors: Farivar, Behzad S., MD, Flannagan, Molly, MD, Leitman, I. Michael, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-03-2015
• Subjects: Adult; Attitude of Health Personnel; Clinical Competence; Curriculum; Education, Medical, Graduate - methods; Educational Measurement; Female; General Surgery - education; graduate medical education; Humans; Internet; Internship and Residency - methods; Male; minimally invasive surgery; New York City; Perception; residency; robot; Robotic Surgical Procedures - education; robotics; Surgery; surgical education; Surveys and Questionnaires; Young Adult; New York City; robot; residency; graduate medical education; Patient Care; minimally invasive surgery; Medical Knowledge; Systems-Based Practice; robotics; surgical education
• ISSN: 1931-7204; 1878-7452
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.09.008

Introduction With the continued expansion of robotically assisted procedures, general surgery residents continue to receive more exposure to this new technology as part of their training. There are currently no guidelines or standardized training requirements for robot-assisted procedures during general surgical residency. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of this new technology on general surgery training from the residents’ perspective. Methods An anonymous, national, web-based survey was conducted on residents enrolled in general surgery training in 2013. The survey was sent to 240 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved general surgery training programs. Results Overall, 64% of the responding residents were men and had an average age of 29 years. Half of the responses were from postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and PGY2 residents, and the remainder was from the PGY3 level and above. Overall, 50% of the responses were from university training programs, 32% from university-affiliated programs, and 18% from community-based programs. More than 96% of residents noted the availability of the surgical robot system at their training institution. Overall, 63% of residents indicated that they had participated in robotic surgical cases. Most responded that they had assisted in 10 or fewer robotic cases with the most frequent activities being assisting with robotic trocar placement and docking and undocking the robot. Only 18% reported experience with operating the robotic console. More senior residents (PGY3 and above) were involved in robotic cases compared with junior residents (78% vs 48%, p < 0.001). Overall, 60% of residents indicated that they received no prior education or training before their first robotic case. Approximately 64% of residents reported that formal training in robotic surgery was important in residency training and 46% of residents indicated that robotic-assisted cases interfered with resident learning. Only 11% felt that robotic-assisted cases would replace conventional laparoscopic surgery in the future. Conclusions This study illustrates that although the most residents have a robot at their institution and have participated in robotic surgery cases, very few residents received formal training before participating in a robotic case.