Huang, Hubert K, MS, MED

Huang, Michelle W, MD

Hutchinson, Thomas, MD

Martino, Martin A, MD

Patruno, Joseph E, MD

English

Lehigh Valley Health Network: LVHN Scholarly Works

Lehigh Valley Health NetworkLVHN Scholarly WorksDepartment of Obstetrics & GynecologyAn Analysis of the Educational Value and Impact ofa Dual, Versus Single, Robotic Surgical Console inthe Training of OBGYN ResidentsJoseph E. Patruno MDLehigh Valley Health Network, Joseph_E.Patruno@lvhn.orgHubert K. Huang MS, MEDLehigh Valley Health Network, hubert_k.huang@lvhn.orgMichelle W. Huang MDLehigh Valley Health Network, Michelle_W.Huang@lvhn.orgThomas Hutchinson MDLehigh Valley Health Network, Thomas.Hutchinson@lvhn.orgMartin A. Martino MDLehigh Valley Health Network, martin_a.martino@lvhn.orgFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarlyworks.lvhn.org/obstetrics-gynecologyPart of the Medical Education Commons, Obstetrics and Gynecology Commons, Statistics andProbability Commons, and the Surgery CommonsThis Poster is brought to you for free and open access by LVHN Scholarly Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in LVHN Scholarly Works by anauthorized administrator. For more information, please contact LibraryServices@lvhn.org.Published In/Presented AtPatruno, J., Huang, H., Huang, M., Hutchinson, T., & Martino, M. (2013). An analysis of the educational value and impact of a dual,versus single, robotic surgical console in the training of OBGYN Residents. Poster presentation.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PAAn Analysis of the Educational Value and Impact of a Dual, Versus Single,Robotic Surgical Console in the Training of OBGYN ResidentsReferences:1	 	Davis	JW,	Kamat	A,	Munsell	M,	et	al.		Initial	experience	of	teaching	robot-assisted	radical	prostatectomy	to	surgeons-in-training:	can	training	be	evaluated	and	standardized?		BJU	Int	2009;	105(8):	1148-54.2	 	Grover	S,	Gerald	YT,	Srivastava	A,	Leung	RA,	Tewari	AK.		Residentcy	training	program	paradigms	for	teaching	robotic	surgical	skills	to	urology	residents.		Curr	Urol	Reports	2010;	11(2):	87-92.3	 	Guzzo	TJ,	Gonzalgo	ML.		Robotic	surgical	training	of	the	urologic	oncologist.		Urol	Onc:	Seminars	and	Original	Investigations	2009;	27(2):	214-7.4	 	Hoekstra	AV,	Morgan	JM,	Lurain	JR,	et	al.		Robotic	surgery	in	gynecologic	oncology:		Impact	on	fellowship	training.		Gynec	Onc	2009;	114:	168-72.5	 	Lee	JY,	Mucksavage	P,	Sundaram	CP,	McDougall	EM.		Best	practices	for	robotic	surgery	training	and	credentialing.		J	of	Urology	2011;	185(4):	1191-7.6	 	Woelk	JL,	Casiano	ER,	Weaver	AL,	Gostout	BS,	Trabuco	EC,	Gebhart	JB.		The	Learning	Curve	of	Robotic	Hysterectomy.		Obstet	Gynecol	2013;	121:	87-94.Joseph E. Patruno, MD; Hubert K. Huang, MS, M.ED; Michelle W. Huang, MD; Thomas Hutchinson, MD; Martin Martino, MD© 2013 Lehigh Valley Health NetworkResultsObjectiveTo investigate whether resident programs that invest in Dual User Robotic Consoles (DURC) are more committed to teaching residents robotic surgery than programs that have only Single User Robotic Consoles (SURC) by comparing program demographics, curriculum structure, aspects of surgical training, and attitudes and opinions towards robotic technology.HypothesisPrograms that invest in and utilize DURC are more likely to have a formal robotic teaching curriculum, are more committed to robotic surgical training, and are more likely to report positive opinions or attitudes towards robotic technology.MethodsA web-based survey was distributed to 226 OBGYN residency program directors in January 2012. The content of the survey focused on the state of robotic surgery in each program and how robotic technology has affected training programs. Survey questions fell into four broad categories including; 1) Program demographics 2) Curriculum structure 3) Aspects of surgical training, and 4) Opinions and attitudes towards robotic technology. Programs with DURC and SURC were compared using a variety of educational metrics. All data was maintained in an Excel database and statistical assessment including χ2 analysis and independent t-tests was performed using SPSS 16.0. DiscussionRobotic surgery has become an important surgical technology and continues to influence the training of OBGYN residents. Both community-based and university-based programs have invested in dual consoles.  Programs that have invested in DURC offer more opportunities for residents to learn robotics via simulation and also offer more surgical fellowships.  Although not statistically significant, programs with DURC are more likely to have formal, structured robotics  curriculums.  Dual console programs also report higher level of resident interest in robotic surgery and a less negative effect of robotics on residents’ surgical skills.   Although investment in DURC may represent a higher level of commitment to teaching robotic surgical techniques to residents, it does not correlate with residents’ ability to obtain ACGME credit for performing robotic surgery cases.  ACGME credit for residents in programs with DURC may be hindered by the increased correlation with surgical fellowship programs.•  Demographics:  –  Responses included an even distribution between community and university programs and included input from programs in all regions of the country.•  Curriculum structure:  –  Programs with DURC are more likely to have a formal robotic training curriculum than programs with SURC but the association is not statistically significant (61.54% vs. 40.00%; p=0.06).•  Commitment to robotic surgical training:  –  Programs with DURC are not more likely than programs with SURC to have residents receive ACGME credit as primary surgeon on robotic cases (30.77% vs. 34.29%; p=0.71).  –  Programs with DURC are more likely than programs with SURC to have a robotic surgery simulator available for residents to learn robotic surgical techniques (79.5% vs. 45.7%; p <  0.01).  –  More gynecologic surgery fellowships are offered at programs with DURC than programs with SURC (42 vs 25, p<0.01).•  Attitudes and opinions:  –  A higher percentage of program directors of residencies with DURC  considered their residents as “extremely interested” in being involved with and learning robotic surgery (61.29% vs. 34.38%).  –  Program directors who oversee programs with a DURC also indicated that robotics has had a less negative effect on the surgical skills of their residents than program directors in program with only SURC, although no statistical difference was noted (33.3% vs. 45.7%; p=0.31).Seventy-four program directors completed the survey (33% response rate).  Of the responding programs, thirty-five have SURC (47%) and thirty-nine have DURC (53%).051015202530yes no developingNumberofprogramsOB/GYN programs and formal robotictraining curriculumsingle consoledual console02468101214161820ExtremelyinterestedSomewhatinterestedNeutral SomewhatdisinterestedVerydisinterestedNumberofProgramsLevel of InterestResidents' interest in being involved withand learning robotic surgerysingle consoledual console16 (47.71%)31 (79.49%)05101520253035single console dual consoleNumberofprogramsType of robotic surgery simulatorPrograms that have a robotic surgery simulatorthat residents are able to use in their institution051015202530GynecologicOncologyUrogynecologyand PelvicSurgeryInvasiveSurgicalReproductiveEndocrinologyOtherNumberofprogramsType of FellowshipFellowshipssingle consoledual consoleOB/GYN Programs and FormalRobotic Training CurriculumPrograms That Have a Robotic SurgerySimulator that Residents are Ableto Use in Their InstitutionResidents’ Interest in Being Involved with and Learning Ro otic Surg ryFellowships

An Analysis of the Educational Value and Impact of a Dual, Versus Single, Robotic Surgical Console in the Training of OBGYN Residents

https://scholarlyworks.lvhn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1283&context=obstetrics-gynecology

An Analysis of the Educational Value and Impact of a Dual, Versus Single, Robotic Surgical Console in the Training of OBGYN Residents

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lehigh Valley Health Network: LVHN Scholarly Works