Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Demonstrating the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) curriculum on the RobotiX Mentor Virtual Reality Simulation Platform

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

Abstract

Fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) is a proficiency-based progression curriculum developed by robotic surgery experts from multiple specialty areas to address gaps in existing robotic surgery training curricula. The RobotiX Mentor is a virtual reality training platform for robotic surgery. Our aims were to determine if robotic surgery novices would demonstrate improved technical skills after completing FRS training on the RobotiX Mentor, and to compare the effectiveness of FRS across training platforms. An observational, pre-post design, multi-institutional rater-blinded trial was conducted at two American College of Surgeons Accredited Education Institutes-certified simulation centers. Robotic surgery novices (n = 20) were enrolled and trained to expert-derived benchmarks using FRS on the RobotiX Mentor. Participants’ baseline skill was assessed before (pre-test) and after (post-test) training on an avian tissue model. Tests were video recorded and graded by blinded raters using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) and a 32-criteria psychomotor checklist. Post hoc comparisons were conducted against previously published comparator groups. On paired-samples T tests, participants demonstrated improved performance across all GEARS domains (p < 0.001 to p = 0.01) and for time (p < 0.001) and errors (p = 0.003) as measured by psychometric checklist. By ANOVA, improvement in novices’ skill after FRS training on the RobotiX Mentor was not inferior to improvement reported after FRS training on previously published platforms. Completion of FRS on the RobotiX Mentor resulted in improved robotic surgery skills among novices, proving effectiveness of training. These data provide additional validity evidence for FRS and support use of the RobotiX Mentor for robotic surgery skill acquisition.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. (2018) da Vinci Training. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. https://www.intuitivesurgical.com/training. Accessed 22 Jan 2019

  2. 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 26:2740–2745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Connolly M, Seligman J, Kastenmeier A, Goldblatt M, Gould JC (2014) Validation of a virtual reality-based robotic surgical skills curriculum. Surg Endosc 28:1691–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery 152:477–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ (2012) Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises. Surg Endosc 26:1516–1521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 215:277–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McClusky DA 3rd, Ramel S, Smith CD, Arvidsson D (2007) Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg 193:797–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Angelo RL, Ryu RK, Pedowitz RA, Beach W, Burns J, Dodds J, Field L, Getelman M, Hobgood R, McIntyre L, Gallagher AG (2015) A proficiency-based progression training curriculum coupled with a model simulator results in the acquisition of a superior arthroscopic bankart skill set. Arthroscopy 31:1854–1871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cates CU, Lönn L, Gallagher AG (2016) Prospective, randomised and blinded comparison of proficiency-based progression full-physics virtual reality simulator training versus invasive vascular experience for learning carotid artery angiography by very experienced operators. BMJ Simulat TechnolEnhanced Learn 2:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gallagher AG (2012) Metric-based simulation training to proficiency in medical education: what it is and how to do it. Ulster Med J 81:107–113

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gallagher AG, O’Sullivan GC (2011) Fundamentals of surgical simulation: principles & practice. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, Higgins G, Fried MP, Moses G, Smith CD, Satava RM (2005) Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg 241:364–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stefanidis D (2010) Optimal acquisition and assessment of proficiency on simulators in surgery. Surg Clin N Am 90:475–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zevin B, Levy JS, Satava RM, Grantcharov TP (2012) A consensus-based framework for design, validation, and implementation of simulation-based training curricula in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 215(580–586):e583

    Google Scholar 

  15. Satava RM, Stefanidis D, Levy JS, Smith R, Martin JR, Monfared S, Timsina LR, Darzi AW, Moglia A, Brand TC, Dorin RP, Dumon KR, Francone TD, Georgiou E, Goh AC, Marcet JE, Martino MA, Sudan R, Vale J, Gallagher AG (2019) Proving the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty, multi-institutional randomized control trial. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003220 (Publish Ahead of Print)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dreyfus SE (2004) The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:177–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. (2018) Fundamentals of robotic surgery curriculum. Case network http://www.frssurgery.org/frs-curriculum/. Accessed 22 Jan 2019

  18. (2018) Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills. C-SATS http://www.csats.com. Accessed 22 Jan 2019

  19. Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187:247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schommer E, Patel VR, Mouraviev V, Thomas C, Thiel DD (2017) Diffusion of robotic technology into urologic practice has led to improved resident physician robotic skills. J Surg Educ 74:55–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bertolo R, Garisto J, Dagenais J, Sagalovich D, Kaouk JH (2018) Single session of robotic human cadaver training: the immediate impact on urology residents in a teaching hospital. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28:1157–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tam V, Lutfi W, Novak S, Hamad A, Lee KK, Zureikat AH, Zeh HJ 3rd, Hogg ME (2018) Resident attitudes and compliance towards robotic surgical training. Am J Surg 215:282–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 29:1295–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The Institute for Surgical Excellence (ISE), a 501(c)(3) public charity that supports surgical education, received a grant award and provided administrative support for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 545 Barnhill Drive, Emerson Hall 125, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    John Rhodes Martin & Dimitrios Stefanidis

  2. Center for Education, Simulation and Innovation, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA

    Ryan P. Dorin

  3. Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Alvin C. Goh

  4. Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Richard M. Satava

  5. Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Institute for Surgical Excellence, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jeffrey S. Levy

Authors
  1. John Rhodes Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitrios Stefanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryan P. Dorin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alvin C. Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard M. Satava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeffrey S. Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors whose names appear on the submission made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Rhodes Martin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by local IRB and conducted at two American College of Surgeons Accredited Education Institutes (ACS-AEI)-certified simulation centers.

Consent to participate

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

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

Martin, J.R., Stefanidis, D., Dorin, R.P. et al. Demonstrating the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) curriculum on the RobotiX Mentor Virtual Reality Simulation Platform. J Robotic Surg 15, 187–193 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01085-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01085-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation