Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intentional enterotomies: validation of a novel robotic surgery training exercise

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

Abstract

While laparoscopic simulation-based training is a well-established component of general surgery training, no such requirement or standardized curriculum exists for robotic surgery. Furthermore, there is a lack of high-fidelity electrocautery simulation training exercises in the literature. Using Messick’s validity framework, we sought to determine the content, response process, internal content and construct validity of a novel inanimate tissue model that utilizes electrocautery for potential incorporation in such curricula. A multi-institutional, prospective study involving medical students (MS) and general surgery residents (PGY1-3) was conducted. Participants performed an exercise using a biotissue bowel model on the da Vinci Xi robotic console during which they created an enterotomy using electrocautery, followed by approximation with interrupted sutures. Participant performance was recorded and then scored by crowd-sourced assessors of technical skill, along with three of the authors. Construct validity was determined via difference in Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) score, time to completion, and total number of errors between the two cohorts. Upon completion of the exercise, participants were surveyed on their perception of the exercise and its impact on their robotic training to determine content validity. 31 participants were enrolled and separated into two cohorts: MS + PGY1 vs. PGY2-3. Time spent on the robotic trainer (0.8 vs. 8.13 h, p = 0.002), number of bedside robotic assists (5.7 vs. 14.8, p < 0.001), and number of robotic cases as primary surgeon (0.3 vs. 13.1, p < 0.001) were statistically significant between the two groups. Differences in GEARS scores (18.5 vs. 19.9, p = 0.001), time to completion (26.1 vs. 14.4 min, p < 0.001), and total errors (21.5 vs. 11.9, p = 0.018) between the groups were statistically significant as well. Of the 23 participants that completed the post-exercise survey, 87% and 91.3% reported improvement in robotic surgical ability and confidence, respectively. On a 10-point Likert scale, respondents rated the realism of the exercise 7.5, educational benefit 9.1, and effectiveness in teaching robotic skills 8.7. Controlling for the upfront investment of certain training materials, each exercise iteration cost ~ $30. This study confirmed the content, response process, internal structure and construct validity of a novel, high-fidelity and cost-effective inanimate tissue exercise which successfully incorporates electrocautery. Consideration should be given to its addition to robotic surgery training programs.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data available on request from the authors.

References

  1. ScienceDaily (2000) FDA approves New Robotic Surgery Device. ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000717072719.htm

  2. Annualreports.com. Intuitive Annual Report 2018. (n.d.). https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/i/NASDAQ_ISRG_2018.pdf

  3. Intuitive | ISRG for investors. Intuitive&nbsp; Annual Report 2019. (n.d.). https://isrg.gcs-web.com/static-files/31b5c428-1d95-4c01-9c85-a7293bac5e05

  4. Perez RE, Schwaitzberg S (2019) Robotic surgery: finding value in 2019 and beyond. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg 4:51. https://doi.org/10.21037/ales.2019.05.02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pradarelli JC, Thornton JP, Dimick JB (2017) Who is responsible for the safe introduction of new surgical technology?: An important legal precedent from the Da Vinci surgical system trials. JAMA Surg 152(8):717–718. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper MA, Ibrahim A, Lyu H, Makary MA (2015) Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual 37(2):133–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhq.12036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Foell K, Finelli A, Yasufuku K, Bernardini MQ, Waddell TK, Pace KT et al (2013) Robotic surgery basic skills training: evaluation of a pilot multidisciplinary simulation-based curriculum. Can Urol Assoc J 7(11–12):430–434. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.222

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Connolly M, Seligman J, Kastenmeier A, Goldblatt M, Gould JC (2014) Validation of a virtual reality-based robotic surgical skills curriculum. Surg Endosc 28(5):1691–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3373-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Green CA, Chern H, O’Sullivan PS (2018) Current robotic curricula for surgery residents: a need for additional cognitive and psychomotor focus. Am J Surg 215(2):277–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.09.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST et al (2012) Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery 152(3):477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2012.07.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Winder JS, Juza RM, Sasaki J, Rogers AM, Pauli EM, Haluck RS et al (2016) Implementing a robotics curriculum at an academic general surgery training program: our initial experience. J Robot Surg 10(3):209–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0569-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moit H, Dwyer A, De Sutter M, Heinzel S, Crawford D (2019) A standardized robotic training curriculum in a general surgery program. JSLS. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2019.00045

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen R, Rodrigues Armijo P, Krause C, Siu KC, Oleynikov D, Force SRT (2020) A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education. Surg Endosc 34(1):361–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06775-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Satava RM, Stefanidis D, Levy JS, Smith R, Martin JR, Monfared S et al (2020) Proving the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty multi-institutional randomized control trial. Ann Surg 272(2):384–392. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR, Rehman S, Ghani K, Autorino R et al (2013) Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 81(4):767–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Khan MTA, Patnaik R, Lee CS, Willson CM, Demario VK, Krell RW et al (2022) Systematic review of academic robotic surgery curricula. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01500-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186(3):1019–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR, Narins H, Gomella LG, Trabulsi EJ et al (2012) Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. Urology 79(5):1068–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A (2016) A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol 69(6):1065–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.09.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Messick S (1998) Test validity: a matter of consequence. Soc Indic Res 45(1):35–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006964925094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee CS, Khan MT, Patnaik R, Stull MC, Krell RW, Laverty RB (2022) Model development of a novel robotic surgery training exercise with electrocautery. Cureus 14(4):e24531. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24531

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Aghazadeh MA, Jayaratna IS, Hung AJ, Pan MM, Desai MM, Gill IS et al (2015) External validation of global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc 29(11):3261–3266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4070-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kiely DJ, Gotlieb WH, Lau S, Zeng X, Samouelian V, Ramanakumar AV et al (2015) Virtual reality robotic surgery simulation curriculum to teach robotic suturing: a randomized controlled trial. J Robot Surg 9(3):179–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0513-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Holst D, Kowalewski TM, White LW, Brand TC, Harper JD, Sorensen MD et al (2015) Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: differentiating animate surgical skill through the wisdom of crowds. J Endourol 29(10):1183–1188. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen C, White L, Kowalewski T, Aggarwal R, Lintott C, Comstock B et al (2014) Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: a novel method to evaluate surgical performance. J Surg Res 187(1):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.09.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lendvay TS, White L, Kowalewski T (2015) Crowdsourcing to assess surgical skill. JAMA Surg 150(11):1086–1087. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.2405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kowalewski TM, Comstock B, Sweet R, Schaffhausen C, Menhadji A, Averch T et al (2016) Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills for validation of basic laparoscopic urologic skills tasks. J Urol 195(6):1859–1865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Goldenberg M, Lee JY (2018) Surgical education, simulation, and simulators—updating the concept of validity. Curr Urol Rep 19(7):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0799-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Cook DA, Beckman TJ (2006) Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 119(2):166.e7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52(4):281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. White LW, Kowalewski TM, Dockter RL, Comstock B, Hannaford B, Lendvay TS (2015) Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skill: a valid method for discriminating basic robotic surgery skills. J Endourol 29(11):1295–1301. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Awan M, Zagales I, McKenney M, Kinslow K, Elkbuli AACGME (2011) Duty hours restrictions and their effects on surgical residency training and patients outcomes: a systematic review. J Surg Educ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schlottmann F, Herbella FAM, Patti MG (2021) Simulation for foregut and bariatric surgery: current status and future directions. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 31(5):546–550. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2021.0080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Patnaik R, Khan MT, Yamaguchi S, Fritze DM (2022) building a low-cost and low-fidelity kidney transplant model: a technical report on the San Antonio kidney transplant model. Cureus 14(4):e23883. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23883

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Patnaik R, Khan MTA, Willis RE, Yamaguchi S, Scott DJ, Oh T et al (2022) The San Antonio kidney transplant model: validity evidence and proficiency benchmarks. Global Surg Educ-J Assoc Surg Educ 1(1):39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tam V, Zenati M, Novak S, Chen Y, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ et al (2017) Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy biotissue curriculum has validity and improves technical performance for surgical oncology fellows. J Surg Educ 74(6):1057–1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.05.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Marecik SJ, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Jan A, Chaudhry V (2008) Evaluation of midlevel and upper-level residents performing their first robotic-sutured intestinal anastomosis. Am J Surg 195(3):333–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.12.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hung AJ, Jayaratna IS, Teruya K, Desai MM, Gill IS, Goh AC (2013) Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int 112(6):864–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee C, Khan M, Patnaik R, Krell R, Stull M, Laverty R (2022) Model development of a novel robotic surgery training exercise with electrocautery. Cureus 14(4):e24531. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24531

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Patnaik R, Stefanidis D (2019) Outcome-based training and the role of simulation. comprehensive healthcare simulation: surgery and surgical subspecialties. Springer, pp 69–78

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Willis RE, Richa J, Oppeltz R, Nguyen P, Wagner K, Van Sickle KR et al (2012) Comparing three pedagogical approaches to psychomotor skills acquisition. Am J Surg 203(1):8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.07.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would also like to thank the Ruth L Kirschstein NRSA Institutional Research Training Grant.

Funding

This work was supported by a Department of Defense research grant through the USAF Graduate Medical Education office.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Robert B. Laverty and Mustafa T. Khan are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Robert B. Laverty, Christina S. Lee, Robert W. Krell & Mamie C. Stull

  2. Department of General Surgery, Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX, 78229-3900, USA

    Mustafa T. Khan, Ronit Patnaik & Cassandra D. Leonardo

Authors
  1. Robert B. Laverty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa T. Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronit Patnaik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christina S. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cassandra D. Leonardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert W. Krell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mamie C. Stull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RL, RK, and MS were responsible for initial experimental design. RL, MK, CL, CD were responsible for collecting data. MK, RP were responsible for data analysis. MK made all figures and tables. RL, MK, RP wrote initial draft of manuscript. All authors were responsible for reviewing the data and manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa T. Khan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have financial or other conflicts of interest. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of Brooke Army Medical Center, the US. Army Medical Department, the US. Army Office of the Surgeon General, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, or the Department of Defense, or the US Government.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laverty, R.B., Khan, M.T., Patnaik, R. et al. Intentional enterotomies: validation of a novel robotic surgery training exercise. J Robotic Surg 17, 2109–2115 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01625-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01625-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation