Advertisement

The importance of robotic-assisted procedures in residency training to applicants of a community general surgery residency program

  • William Krause
  • Julio Bird
Original Article

Abstract

Surgery is an ever evolving discipline, and robotic-assisted procedures are the next generation of surgical techniques. There is currently no requirement for robotic training in surgical residency programs; thus, general surgery programs have incorporated it into their curriculums to varying degrees, including our recently adopted curriculum. As programs adopt new curriculum, it is unknown how applicants in community general surgery view the importance of robotic surgery for future procedures and its overall value in their training. To answer these questions, a voluntary and anonymous survey was given to all applicants of our community general surgery program and the responses assessed with descriptive statistics. The majority (76.92%) of our applicants believed robotic surgery would be very important in the future; however, less respondents (63.46%) believed that robotics would be very important to their particular career. While most (57.69%) reported being very interested in a program that offers robotic surgery, other respondents (53.85%) were indifferent toward a program that did not offer a robotics curriculum. Therefore, most applicants to our community program believe that robotic surgery will be an important part of surgery in upcoming years and most are very interested in a residency program that includes robotic surgery in the curriculum.

Keywords

General Surgery Survey Robotics Applicants Residency 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

William Krause MD, Alfonso Velasco MD, Danial Cullinane MD, James Clay MD and Julio Brid MD declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Wormer B, Dacey K, Heniford B et al (2014) The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start. Surg Endosc (serial online) 28(3):767–776 (Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed August 9, 201) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Herron DM, Marohn M, Group S-MRSC (2008) A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22(2):313–325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9727-5 (discussion 1–2) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tam V, Lutfi W, Novak S, Hamad A, Lee KK, Zureikat AH, Herbert J, Zeh ME, Hogg (2017) Resident attitudes and compliance towards robotic surgical training. Am J Surg (ISSN 0002-9610) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donias HW, Karamanoukian RL, .Glick PL, Bergsland J, Karamanoukian HL (2002) Survey of resident training in robotic surgery. Am Surg 68(2):177–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oviedo RJ, Robertson JC, Alrajhi S (2016) First 101 robotic general surgery cases in a community hospital. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 20(3):e2016.00056.  https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gujer MW, LeMieur TP, McCollister HM, Roberts SA, Severson PA (2009) Building and maintaining a successful surgery program in rural Minnesota. Surg Clin N Am 89(6):1349–1357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryMarshfield ClinicMarshfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations