Training in robotic surgery, replicating the airline industry. How far have we come?

Justin William Collins, Pawel Wisz, Justin William Collins, Pawel Wisz

Abstract

Introduction: As the role of robot-assisted surgery continues to expand, development of standardised and validated training programmes is becoming increasingly important. We aim to compare current robotic training curricula with training in aviation, to evaluate current similarities and to provide insight into how healthcare can further learn from replicating initiatives in aviation training.

Methods: A systematic literature review of the current evidence was conducted online and relevant publications and information were identified. Evaluation and comparison between training in robotic surgery and the aviation industry was performed.

Results: There are significant similarities between modern robotic training curricula and pilot training. Both undergo basic training before proceeding to advanced training. Aviation training methods include classroom instruction, e-learning and practical training, in both the aircraft and flight simulation training devices. Both surgeon and pilot training include technical and procedural instruction as well as training in non-technical skills such as crisis management, decision making, leadership and communication. However, there is more regulation in aviation, with international standards for training curricula, simulation devices and instructors/trainers that are legally binding. Continuous learning with re-qualification with benchmarked high stakes tests are also mandatory throughout a pilot's and instructor's career.

Conclusion: Robotic surgeons and pilots roles have many fundamental similarities. Both work with expensive and complex technology requiring high levels of skills, within working environments with high physiological and psychological stress levels. Whilst many initiatives in aviation training have already been replicated in surgical training there remain considerable differences in regulation. Adopting established and proven aviation methods of assessment and regulation could help robotic surgical training become more efficient, more effective and ultimately safer.

Keywords: Non-technical skills; Patient safety; Proficiency-based progression; Robotic-assisted surgery; Surgical education; Training.

Conflict of interest statement

JW Coliins has received advisory role fees from Medtronic and J&J, speakers fees from Intuitive and research grants from Intuitive Surgical and Medtronic in the last 5 years. P Wisc has no potential conflicts of interest to report.

References

    1. Fried MP, Gallagher AG, Satava RM. Training to proficiency: aircraft to OR. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(10):1145–1146.
    1. Nance JJ. Why Hospitals should fly—the ultimate flight plan to patient safety and quality care. Bozeman: Second River Healthcare Press; 2008.
    1. Collins JW, Levy J, Stefanidis D, Gallagher A, Coleman M, Cecil T, et al. Utilising the Delphi process to develop a proficiency-based progression train-the-trainer course for robotic surgery training. Eur Urol. 2019;75(5):775–785.
    1. Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A, Lovegrove C, Abaza R, Ahlawat R, et al. Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int. 2015;116(1):93–101.
    1. ECRI Institute (2014) Top 10 Health Technology Hazards for 2015. Health Devices. . Accessed Oct 2019
    1. Fisher RA, Dasgupta P, Mottrie A, Volpe A, Khan MS, Challacombe B, et al. An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg. 2015;13:115–123.
    1. Dyer C. Bristol inquiry: Bristol inquiry condemns hospital’s “club culture”. BMJ. 2001;323(7306):181.
    1. Aboumatar HJ, Weaver SJ, Rees D, Rosen MA, Sawyer MD, Pronovost PJ. Towards high-reliability organising in healthcare: a strategy for building organisational capacity. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(8):663–670.
    1. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):768–770.
    1. Raison N, Wood T, Brunckhorst O, Abe T, Ross T, Challacombe B, et al. Development and validation of a tool for non-technical skills evaluation in robotic surgery—the ICARS system. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):5403–5410.
    1. Collins JW, Dell’Oglio P, Hung AJ, Brook NR. The importance of technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery training [Figure presented] Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(5):674–676.
    1. Lancet The. WHO’s patient-safety checklist for surgery. Lancet. 2008;372(9632):1.
    1. Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P, Ficarra V, Novara G, Van Der Poel H, et al. Pilot validation study of the European association of urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol. 2015;68(2):292–299.
    1. Mottrie A, Novara G, van der Poel H, Dasgupta P, Montorsi F, Gandaglia G. The European association of urology robotic training curriculum: an update. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2(1):105–108.
    1. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13((Suppl 1)):i2–i10.
    1. Ziv A, Root Wolpe P, Small SD, Glick S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):783–788.
    1. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat A-HS, Dellinger EP, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):491–499.
    1. Veronesi G, Dorn P, Dunning J, Cardillo G, Schmid RA, Collins J, et al. Outcomes from the Delphi process of the thoracic robotic curriculum development committee. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;53(6):1173–1179.
    1. Lovegrove C, Novara G, Mottrie A, Guru KA, Brown M, Challacombe B, et al. Structured and modular training pathway for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): validation of the RARP assessment score and learning curve assessment. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):526–535.
    1. Sinclair P, Kable A, Levett-Jones T. The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(1):52–64.
    1. Sotelo RJ, Haese A, Machuca V, Medina L, Nuñez L, Santinelli F, et al. Safer surgery by learning from complications: a focus on robotic prostate surgery. Eur Urol. 2016;69(2):334–344.
    1. Raison N, Ahmed K, Abe T, Brunckhorst O, Novara G, Buffi N, et al. Cognitive training for technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 2018;122(6):1075–1081.
    1. Badash I, Burtt K, Solorzano CA, Carey JN. Innovations in surgery simulation: a review of past, current and future techniques. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(23):453.
    1. MacCraith E, Forde JC, Davis NF. Robotic simulation training for urological trainees: a comprehensive review on cost, merits and challenges. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(3):371–377.
    1. Sotelo RJ, Astigueta JC, Carmona OJ, De Andrade RJ, Moreira OE. Chicken gizzard: a new training model for laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. Actas Urol Esp. 2009;33(10):1083–1087.
    1. Ghazi A, Campbell T, Melnyk R, Feng C, Andrusco A, Stone J, et al. Validation of a full-immersion simulation platform for percutaneous nephrolithotomy using three-dimensional printing technology. J Endourol. 2017;31(12):1314–1320.
    1. Vávra P, Roman J, Zonča P, Ihnát P, Němec M, Kumar J, et al. Recent development of augmented reality in surgery: a review. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:4574172.
    1. Anvari M. Remote telepresence surgery: the Canadian experience. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:537–541.
    1. Anvari M, McKinley C, Stein H. Establishment of the world’s first telerobotic remote surgical service: for provision of advanced laparoscopic surgery in a rural community. Ann Surg. 2005;241:460.
    1. Anvari M. Reaching the rural world through robotic surgical programs. Eur Surg. 2005;37:284–292.
    1. Sebajang H, Trudeau P, Dougall A, et al. The role of telementoring and telerobotic assistance in the provision of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in rural areas. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(9):1389–1393.
    1. Jung JJ, Jüni P, Lebovic G, Grantcharov T (2018) First-year analysis of the operating room black box study. Ann Surg. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002863
    1. Hung AJ, Chen J, Jarc A, Hatcher D, Djaladat H, Gill IS. Development and validation of objective performance metrics for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a pilot study. J Urol. 2018;199(1):296–304.
    1. MacCraith E, Forde JC, Davis N. Robotic simulation training for urological trainees: a comprehensive review on cost, merits and challenges. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(3):371–377.
    1. Gómez Ruiz M, Alfieri S, Becker T, et al. Expert consensus on a Train-the-Trainer curriculum for robotic colorectal surgery. Color Dis. 2019;21(8):903–908.
    1. Collins J, Akre O, Challacombe B, Karim O, Wiklund P. Robotic networks: delivering empowerment through integration. BJU Int. 2015;116(2):167–168.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit