Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 349–355 | Cite as

A census of robotic urological practice and training: a survey of the robotic section of the European Association of Urology

  • Archie Hughes-Hallett
  • Erik Mayer
  • Philip Pratt
  • Alex Mottrie
  • Ara Darzi
  • Justin Vale
Original Article


To determine the current state of robotic urological practice, to establish how robotic training has been delivered and to ascertain whether this training was felt to be adequate. A questionnaire was emailed to members of the European Association of Urology robotic urology section mailing list. Outcomes were subdivided into three groups: demographics, exposure and barriers to training, and delivery of training. A comparative analysis of trainees and independently practising robotic surgeons was performed. 239 surgeons completed the survey, of these 117 (48.9 %) were practising robotic surgeons with the remainder either trainees or surgeons who had had received training in robotic surgery. The majority of robotic surgeons performed robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (90.6 %) and were undertaking >50 robotic cases per annum (55.6 %). Overall, only 66.3 % of respondents felt their robotic training needs had been met. Trainee satisfaction was significantly lower than that of independently practising surgeons (51.6 versus 71.6 %, p = 0.01). When a subgroup analysis of trainees was performed examining the relationship between regular simulator access and satisfaction, simulator access was a positive predictor of satisfaction, with 87.5 % of those with regular access versus 36.8 % of those without access being satisfied (p < 0.01). This study reveals that a significant number of urologists do not feel that their robotic training needs have been met. Increased access to simulation, as part of a structured curriculum, appears to improve satisfaction with training and, simultaneously, allows for a proportion of a surgeon’s learning curve to be removed from the operating room.


Robotic surgery Robot assisted da Vinci Training Partial nephrectomy Prostatectomy Cystectomy 


Conflict of interest

Mr. Archie Hughes-Hallett declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mr. Erik Mayer declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dr. Philip Pratt declares that he has no conflict of interest. Prof. Alex Mottrie declares that he has no conflict of interest. Prof. Ara Darzi declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mr Justin Vale declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11701_2014_478_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (443 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 442 kb)
11701_2014_478_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (838 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 838 kb)
11701_2014_478_MOESM3_ESM.doc (46 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 46 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hofer MD, Meeks JJ, Cashy J et al (2013) Impact of increasing prevalence of minimally invasive prostatectomy on open prostatectomy observed in the national inpatient sample and national surgical quality improvement program. J Endourol 27:102–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Or S, Nifong LW, Chitwood WR (2013) Robotic surgical training. Cancer J 19:120–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Shaligram A, Meyer A, Simorov A et al (2013) Survey of minimally invasive general surgery fellows training in robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 7:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robinson M, Macneily A, Goldenberg L et al (2012) Status of robotic-assisted surgery among Canadian urology residents. Can J Urol 6:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC et al (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–528PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sweet RM, Beach R, Sainfort F et al (2012) Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association basic laparoscopic urologic surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol 26:190–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ikonen TS, Antikainen T, Silvennoinen M et al (2012) Virtual reality simulator training of laparoscopic cholecystectomies—a systematic review. Scand J Surg 101:5–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC et al (2012) Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator—role as an assessment tool? J Urol 187:998–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finnegan KT, Meraney AM, Staff I et al (2012) da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology 80:330–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186:1019–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hung AJ, Jayaratna IS, Teruya K et al (2013) Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int 112:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC et al (2012) Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery 152:477–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hung AJ, Ng CK, Patil MB et al (2012) Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model. BJU Int 110:870–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR et al (2013) Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 81:767–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suh I, Mukherjee M, Oleynikov D et al (2011) Training program for fundamental surgical skill in robotic laparoscopic surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 7:327–333Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 6:e34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke M et al (2010) Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires (Review). Cochrane CollabGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yu H, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR et al (2012) Comparative analysis of outcomes and costs following open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Eur Urol 61:1239–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2011) Innovation in surgical education—a driver for change. Surgeon 9:S30–S31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Palter VN, Orzech N, Reznick RK et al (2013) Validation of a structured training and assessment curriculum for technical skill acquisition in minimally invasive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 257:224–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kroeze SGC, Mayer EK, Chopra S et al (2009) Assessment of laparoscopic suturing skills of urology residents: a pan-European study. Eur Urol 56:865–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Banks EH, Chudnoff S, Karmin I et al (2007) Does a surgical simulator improve resident operative performance of laparoscopic tubal ligation? Am J Obs Gynecol. 197(541):e1–e5Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirby TO, Numnum TM, Kilgore LC et al (2008) A prospective evaluation of a simulator-based laparoscopic training program for gynecology residents. J Am Coll Surg 206:343–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2009) From scalpel to simulator: a surgical journey. Surgery 145:1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK et al (2006) Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 49:866–871 (discussion 871–872)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sfakianos GP, Frederick PJ, Kendrick JE et al (2010) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology fellowship programs in the USA: a survey of fellows and fellowship directors. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 6:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Duchene D, Moinzadeh A, Gill IS et al (2006) Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol 176:2158–2166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khurshid G, Hussain A, Chandrasekhar R et al (2009) Current status of robot-assisted surgery in urology: a multi-national survey of 297 urologic surgeons. Can J Urol 16:4736–4741Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Archie Hughes-Hallett
    • 1
  • Erik Mayer
    • 1
  • Philip Pratt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alex Mottrie
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ara Darzi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Justin Vale
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery and CancerImperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.The Hamlyn Centre for Robotic SurgeryImperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of UrologyOLV ClinicAalstBelgium
  4. 4.O.L.V. Vattikuti Robotic Surgery InstituteAalstBelgium

Personalised recommendations