PDF herunterladen
Semin Plast Surg 2023; 37(03): 157-167
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771026
Review Article

Robotic Plastic Surgery Education: Developing a Robotic Surgery Training Program Specific to Plastic Surgery Trainees

Nicholas H. Yim
1   Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
,
Heather R. Burns
1   Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
,
Matthew J. Davis
1   Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
,
Jesse C. Selber
3   Department of Plastic Surgery, Corewell Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan
› Institutsangaben Funding None
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the surgical community has increasingly embraced robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) due to its potential to enhance accuracy and decrease surgical morbidity. Plastic surgery as a field has been historically slow to incorporate RAS, with lack of adequate training posing as one of the most commonly cited barriers. To date, robot technology has been utilized for various reconstructive procedures including flap elevation and inset, pedicle dissection, and microvascular anastomosis. As RAS continues to integrate within plastic surgery procedures, the need for a structured RAS curriculum designed for plastic surgery trainees is rising. This article delineates the essential components of a plastic surgery-specific RAS curriculum and outlines current training models and assessment tools utilized across surgical subspecialties to date.

Keywords

education - robotic surgery - surgical education - plastic surgery training


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. August 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 2016; 40 (10) 2550-2557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Maza G, Sharma A. Past, present, and future of robotic surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2020; 53 (06) 935-941
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ismail I, Wolff S, Gronfier A, Mutter D, Swanström LL. A cost evaluation methodology for surgical technologies. Surg Endosc 2015; 29 (08) 2423-2432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hassanein AH, Mailey BA, Dobke MK. Robot-assisted plastic surgery. Clin Plast Surg 2012; 39 (04) 419-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bishop SN, Asaad M, Liu J. et al. Robotic harvest of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction: a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149 (05) 1073-1077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lee MJ, Won J, Song SY. et al. Clinical outcomes following robotic versus conventional DIEP flap in breast reconstruction: a retrospective matched study. Front Oncol 2022; 12: 989231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Selber JC. The robotic DIEP flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (02) 340-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gundlapalli VS, Ogunleye AA, Scott K. et al. Robotic-assisted deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap abdominal harvest for breast reconstruction: a case report. Microsurgery 2018; 38 (06) 702-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Clemens MW, Kronowitz S, Selber JC. Robotic-assisted latissimus dorsi harvest in delayed-immediate breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2014; 28 (01) 20-25
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Selber JC. Robotic latissimus dorsi muscle harvest. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (02) 88e-90e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 van Mulken TJM, Wolfs JAGN, Qiu SS. et al; MicroSurgical Robot Research Group. One-year outcomes of the first human trial on robot-assisted lymphaticovenous anastomosis for breast cancer–related lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149 (01) 151-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Li RA, Jensen J, Bowersox JC. Microvascular anastomoses performed in rats using a microsurgical telemanipulator. Comput Aided Surg 2000; 5 (05) 326-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chang EI, Skoracki RJ, Chang DW. Lymphovenous anastomosis bypass surgery. Semin Plast Surg 2018; 32 (01) 22-27
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 van Mulken TJM, Schols RM, Scharmga AMJ. et al; MicroSurgical Robot Research Group. First-in-human robotic supermicrosurgery using a dedicated microsurgical robot for treating breast cancer-related lymphedema: a randomized pilot trial. Nat Commun 2020; 11 (01) 757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Yamamoto T, Yamamoto N, Kageyama T. et al. Supermicrosurgery for oncologic reconstructions. Glob Health Med 2020; 2 (01) 18-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Badalato GM, Shapiro E, Rothberg MB. et al. The da Vinci robot system eliminates multispecialty surgical trainees' hand dominance in open and robotic surgical settings. JSLS 2014; 18 (03) e2014.00399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jimenez C, Stanton E, Sung C, Wong AK. Does plastic surgery need a rewiring? A survey and systematic review on robotic-assisted surgery. JPRAS Open 2022; 33: 76-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lin CY, Liu YC, Chen MC, Chiang FF. Learning curve and surgical outcome of robotic assisted colorectal surgery with ERAS program. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 20566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zaman MF, Buchholz N, Bach C. Robotic surgery and its application in urology: a journey through time. EMJ Uro 2021; 72-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bodner J, Augustin F, Wykypiel H. et al. The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal. Swiss Med Wkly 2005; 135 (45-46): 674-678
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Esposito MP, Ilbeigi P, Ahmed M, Lanteri V. Use of fourth arm in da Vinci robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy: novel technique. Urology 2005; 66 (03) 649-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cepolina F, Razzoli RP. An introductory review of robotically assisted surgical systems. Int J Med Robot 2022; 18 (04) e2409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lagrange F, Fiard G, Larose C, Eschwege P, Hubert J. Role and training of the bedside surgeon in robotic surgery: a survey among French urologists-in-training. Res Rep Urol 2022; 14: 17-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wang RS, Ambani SN. Robotic surgery training: current trends and future directions. Urol Clin North Am 2021; 48 (01) 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chahal B, Aydın A, Amin MSA. et al. Transfer of open and laparoscopic skills to robotic surgery: a systematic review. J Robot Surg 2022; DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01492-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME. et al. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg 2015; 150 (05) 416-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rice MK, Hodges JC, Bellon J. et al. Association of mentorship and a formal robotic proficiency skills curriculum with subsequent generations' learning curve and safety for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. JAMA Surg 2020; 155 (07) 607-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Thornblade LW, Fong Y. Simulation-based training in robotic surgery: contemporary and future methods. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2021; 31 (05) 556-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Selber JC, Chang EI, Liu J. et al. Tracking the learning curve in microsurgical skill acquisition. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (04) 550e-557e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 McDougall EM, Corica FA, Chou DS. et al. Short-term impact of a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy ‘mini-residency’ experience on postgraduate urologists' practice patterns. Int J Med Robot 2006; 2 (01) 70-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 van Mulken TJM, Schols RM, Qiu SS. et al. Robotic (super) microsurgery: feasibility of a new master-slave platform in an in vivo animal model and future directions. J Surg Oncol 2018; 118 (05) 826-831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Katz RD, Rosson GD, Taylor JA, Singh NK. Robotics in microsurgery: use of a surgical robot to perform a free flap in a pig. Microsurgery 2005; 25 (07) 566-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chen R, Rodrigues Armijo P, Krause C, Siu KC, Oleynikov D. SAGES Robotic Task Force. A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education. Surg Endosc 2020; 34 (01) 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Puliatti S, Mazzone E, Dell'Oglio P. Training in robot-assisted surgery. Curr Opin Urol 2020; 30 (01) 65-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sundelin MO, Paltved C, Kingo PS, Kjölhede H, Jensen JB. The transferability of laparoscopic and open surgical skills to robotic surgery. Adv Simul (Lond) 2022; 7 (01) 26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Barnes KE, Brian R, Greenberg AL. et al. Beyond watching: harnessing laparoscopy to increase medical students' engagement with robotic procedures. Am J Surg 2023; S0002-9610 (23) 00092-2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Alrasheed T, Liu J, Hanasono MM, Butler CE, Selber JC. Robotic microsurgery: validating an assessment tool and plotting the learning curve. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (04) 794-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Karamanoukian RL, Bui T, McConnell MP, Evans GRD, Karamanoukian HL. Transfer of training in robotic-assisted microvascular surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (06) 662-665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Selber JC, Alrasheed T. Robotic microsurgical training and evaluation. Semin Plast Surg 2014; 28 (01) 5-10
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bolger JC, Broe MP, Zarog MA. et al. Initial experience with a dual-console robotic-assisted platform for training in colorectal surgery. Tech Coloproctol 2017; 21 (09) 721-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Zhao B, Hollandsworth HM, Lee AM. et al. Making the jump: a qualitative analysis on the transition from bedside assistant to console surgeon in robotic surgery training. J Surg Educ 2020; 77 (02) 461-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Shaw RD, Eid MA, Bleicher J. et al. Current barriers in robotic surgery training for general surgery residents. J Surg Educ 2022; 79 (03) 606-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Smith R, Patel V, Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot 2014; 10 (03) 379-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Satava RM, Stefanidis D, Levy JS. et al. Proving the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty, multi-institutional randomized control trial. Ann Surg 2020; 272 (02) 384-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chowriappa AJ, Shi Y, Raza SJ. et al. Development and validation of a composite scoring system for robot-assisted surgical training–the Robotic Skills Assessment Score. J Surg Res 2013; 185 (02) 561-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lallas CD, Davis JW. Members Of The Society Of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. Robotic surgery training with commercially available simulation systems in 2011: a current review and practice pattern survey from the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Endourol 2012; 26 (03) 283-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR. et al. Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 2013; 81 (04) 767-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Foell K, Finelli A, Yasufuku K. et al. Robotic surgery basic skills training: evaluation of a pilot multidisciplinary simulation-based curriculum. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7 (11-12): 430-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P. et al. Pilot validation study of the european association of urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol 2015; 68 (02) 292-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Sánchez R, Rodríguez O, Rosciano J. et al. Robotic surgery training: construct validity of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). J Robot Surg 2016; 10 (03) 227-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG. et al. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 2005; 190 (01) 107-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 2012; 187 (01) 247-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Siddiqui NY, Tarr ME, Geller EJ. et al. Establishing benchmarks for minimum competence with dry lab robotic surgery drills. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (04) 633-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Schreyer J, Koch A, Herlemann A. et al. RAS-NOTECHS: validity and reliability of a tool for measuring non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery settings. Surg Endosc 2022; 36 (03) 1916-1926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Raison N, Ahmed K, Abe T. et al. Cognitive training for technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 2018; 122 (06) 1075-1081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 White HN, Frederick J, Zimmerman T, Carroll WR, Magnuson JS. Learning curve for transoral robotic surgery: a 4-year analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 139 (06) 564-567
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Patel VR. Essential elements to the establishment and design of a successful robotic surgery programme. Int J Med Robot 2006; 2 (01) 28-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Mazzon G, Sridhar A, Busuttil G. et al. Learning curves for robotic surgery: a review of the recent literature. Curr Urol Rep 2017; 18 (11) 89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Nathan A, Patel S, Georgi M. et al. Virtual classroom proficiency-based progression for robotic surgery training (VROBOT): a randomised, prospective, cross-over, effectiveness study. J Robot Surg 2023; 17 (02) 629-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Waters PS, Flynn J, Larach JT. et al. Fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery within the current hospital setting: an achievable goal?. ANZ J Surg 2021; 91 (11) 2337-2344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar