MRC Centre for Transplantation, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, King's Health Partners, King's College London, London, UK.
Departments of Urology and Nephrology & Renal Transplantation, Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Feb;3(1):102-116. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.01.006. Epub 2016 Feb 17.
Novel surgical techniques demand that surgical training adapts to the need for technical and nontechnical skills.
To identify training methods available for robot-assisted surgical (RAS) training in urology, evaluate their effectiveness in terms of validation, educational impact, acceptability, and cost effectiveness, and assess their effect on learning curves (LCs).
A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines searched Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Results were screened to include appropriate studies. Quality was evaluated. Each method was evaluated, and conclusions were drawn regarding LCs.
Of 359 records, 24 were included (521 participants). Training methods included dry-lab training (n=7), wet-lab training (n=7), mentored training (n=7), and nonstructured pathways (n=5). Dry-lab training demonstrated educational impact by reducing console time and was acceptable in a study; 100% of participants confirmed face validity. Wet-lab training principally uses human cadaveric material; effectiveness is well rated, although dry-lab training and observation were rated as equally useful. Mentored programmes combine lectures, tutorials, observation, simulation, and proctoring. Minifellowships were linked to greater practice of RAS 1 yr later. LCs vary according to experience. One study found that surgeons from robot-related fellowships demonstrated fewer positive surgical margins than surgeons from laparoscopic-related fellowships (24% vs 34.6%; p=0.05) and reduced time (132 vs 152min; p=0.0003). Five studies examined nonstructured training pathways (clinical practice). Experience correlated with fewer complications (p=0.007), improved continence (p=0.049), and reduced time (p=0.002).
RAS training methods include dry and wet lab, mentored training, and nonstructured pathways. Limited available evidence suggests that they affect LCs differently and are rarely used alone. The different methods of training appear effective when combined. Their benefits must be explored to facilitate validated acceptable training with educational impact.
Robot-assisted training encompasses several methods used in combination, but more evidence is required to gain the greatest benefit and formulate future training pathways.
新的手术技术要求手术培训适应技术和非技术技能的需求。
确定泌尿外科机器人辅助手术(RAS)培训中可用的培训方法,根据验证、教育影响、可接受性和成本效益评估它们在学习曲线上的有效性,并评估它们对学习曲线(LCs)的影响。
按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,对 Ovid Medline、Embase、PsycINFO 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统评价。筛选结果以纳入合适的研究。评估了质量。评估了每种方法,并就 LCs 得出结论。
在 359 条记录中,有 24 条被纳入(521 名参与者)。培训方法包括干实验室培训(n=7)、湿实验室培训(n=7)、导师培训(n=7)和非结构化途径(n=5)。干实验室培训通过减少控制台时间来证明教育效果,并且在一项研究中是可以接受的;100%的参与者确认了表面效度。湿实验室培训主要使用人体尸体材料;效果评价较高,尽管干实验室培训和观察被评价为同样有用。导师计划结合讲座、教程、观察、模拟和监督。迷你研究员计划与 1 年后更多地练习 RAS 相关。LCs 根据经验而变化。一项研究发现,来自机器人相关研究员计划的外科医生比来自腹腔镜相关研究员计划的外科医生(24%对 34.6%;p=0.05)和减少时间(132 对 152min;p=0.0003)有更少的阳性手术边缘。五项研究检查了非结构化培训途径(临床实践)。经验与并发症减少(p=0.007)、控尿改善(p=0.049)和时间减少(p=0.002)相关。
RAS 培训方法包括干实验室和湿实验室、导师培训和非结构化途径。有限的可用证据表明,它们以不同的方式影响 LCs,很少单独使用。当结合使用时,不同的培训方法似乎是有效的。必须探讨它们的益处,以促进具有教育影响的验证性可接受培训。
机器人辅助培训包括几种联合使用的方法,但需要更多的证据来获得最大的益处并制定未来的培训途径。