Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Time to consider integration of a formal robotic-assisted surgical training program into obstetrics/gynecology residency curricula

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objectives of the study were to describe robotic-assisted surgery training programs currently being used by ACGME-accredited obstetrics and gynecology (OB/Gyn) residency programs and to explore residents’ attitudes towards their robotic surgery training curricula to evaluate resident desire for robotics training. We conducted a cross-sectional study of OB/Gyn residents for the 2015–2016 academic year. Participants completed a 31-item online questionnaire regarding their robotic-assisted surgical training and associated perspectives. Analyses of these data were primarily descriptive. In total, 98.9% of included respondents (N = 177) reported availability of a surgical robot at their training institution, and 35.0% of participants reported not having any structured robotics training program at their institution. The most commonly used training modalities included online modules (62.2%), dual-assist console (55.1%) and virtual reality simulation (50.3%). The most commonly reported barriers to completing a robots training were a lack of personal time (56.2%) and availability of the virtual reality simulator or access to the robotic equipment (29.2%). OB/Gyn residents desire robotics training and are exposed to a wide variety of training modalities. The ACGME should consider recommending the incorporation of a standardized formal robotics training program as part of the OB/Gyn residency curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee J (2015) Modern healthcare [internet]: crain communications. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150113/NEWS/301139973. Accessed 13 April 2016

  2. Robotic Surgery in Gynecology (2015) ACOG committee opinion no. 628. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 125(3):760–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schreuder HWR, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP et al (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119:137–149

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gobern JM, Novak CM, Lockrow EG (2011) Survey of robotic surgery training in obstetrics and gynecology residency. JMIG 18:755–760

    Google Scholar 

  5. Smith AL, Schneider KM, Berens PD (2010) Survey of obstetrics and gynecology residents training and opinions on robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 4:23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vetter MH, Green I, Martino M, Fowler J, Salani R (2015) Incorporating resident/fellow training into a robotic surgery program. J Surg Oncol 112(7):684–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel YR, Donias HW, Boyd DW, Pandea RU, Amodeo JL, Karamanoukian RL, D’Ancona G, Karamanoukain HL (2003) Are you ready to become a robo-surgeon? Am Surg 69:599–603

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thiel DD, Patel VR, Larson T, Lannen A, Leveillee RJ (2013) Assessment of robotic simulation by trainees in residency programs of the Southeastern Section of the American Urologic Association. J Surg Educ 70(5):571–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vogell A, Gujral H, Wright KN, Wright VW, Ruthazer R (2015) Impact of a robotic simulation program on resident surgical performance. AJOG 213:874–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sheth SS, Fader AN, Tergas AI, Kushnir CL, Green IC (2014) Virtual reality robotic surgical simulation: an analysis of gynecology trainees. J Surg Educ 71:125–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crusco S, Jackson T, Advincula A (2014) Comparing the da Vinci si single console and dual console in teaching novice surgeon suturing techniques. JSLS 18(e2014):00218

    Google Scholar 

  12. Liang MI, McCann GA, Rath KS, Backes FJ, Cansino C, Salani R (2014) Training the next generation of robotic surgeons using guided mentorship: a randomized controlled trial. JMIG 21(6):1075–1079

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fernandes E, Elli E, Guilianotti P (2014) The role of the dual console in robotic surgical training. Surg 155(1):1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Farviar BS, Flannagan M, Leitman IM (2015) General surgery residents’ perception of robot-assisted procedures during surgical training. J Surg Educ 72:235–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Arain NA, Dulan G, Hogg DC, Rege RV, Powers CE, Tesfay ST, Hynan LS, Scott DJ (2012) Comprehensive proficiency-based inanimate training for robotic surgery: reliability, feasibility and educational benefit. Surg Endosc 26(10):2740–2745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Winder JS, Juza RM, Saski J, Rogers AM, Pauli EM, Haluck RS, Estes SJ, Lyn-Sue JR (2016) Implementing a robotics curriculum at an academic general surgery training program: our initial experience. J Robot Surg 10(3):209–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University, 320 W. 10th Avenue, Starling Loving M210, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Monica Hagan Vetter, Jeffrey Fowler & Ritu Salani

  2. Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, 1800 Cannon Drive, 250 Lincoln Tower, Room 320, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Marilly Palettas & Erinn Hade

Authors
  1. Monica Hagan Vetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marilly Palettas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erinn Hade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey Fowler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ritu Salani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Hagan Vetter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Drs. Vetter, Hade, Fowler, Salani and Ms. Palettas declare 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.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vetter, M.H., Palettas, M., Hade, E. et al. Time to consider integration of a formal robotic-assisted surgical training program into obstetrics/gynecology residency curricula. J Robotic Surg 12, 517–521 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0775-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0775-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation