Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Surg Endosc. 2024 Sep;38(9):4906-4915. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10914-8. Epub 2024 Jul 3.
Robotic suturing training is in increasing demand and can be done using suture-pads or robotic simulation training. Robotic simulation is less cumbersome, whereas a robotic suture-pad approach could be more effective but is more costly. A training curriculum with crossover between both approaches may be a practical solution. However, studies assessing the impact of starting with robotic simulation or suture-pads in robotic suturing training are lacking.
This was a randomized controlled crossover trial conducted with 20 robotic novices from 3 countries who underwent robotic suturing training using an Intuitive Surgical X and Xi system with the SimNow (robotic simulation) and suture-pads (dry-lab). Participants were randomized to start with robotic simulation (intervention group, n = 10) or suture-pads (control group, n = 10). After the first and second training, all participants completed a robotic hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) in biotissue. Primary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) score during HJ, scored by two blinded raters. Secondary endpoints were force measurements and a qualitative analysis. After training, participants were surveyed regarding their preferences.
Overall, 20 robotic novices completed both training sessions and performed 40 robotic HJs. After both trainings, OSATS was scored higher in the robotic simulation-first group (3.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.5 ± 0.8; p = 0.049), whereas the median maximum force (N) (5.0 [3.2-8.0] vs 3.8 [2.3-12.8]; p = 0.739) did not differ significantly between the groups. In the survey, 17/20 (85%) participants recommended to include robotic simulation training, 14/20 (70%) participants preferred to start with robotic simulation, and 20/20 (100%) to include suture-pad training.
Surgical performance during robotic HJ in robotic novices was significantly better after robotic simulation-first training followed by suture-pad training. A robotic suturing curriculum including both robotic simulation and dry-lab suturing should ideally start with robotic simulation.
机器人缝合训练的需求不断增加,可以使用缝合垫或机器人模拟训练进行。机器人模拟训练不那么繁琐,而机器人缝合垫方法可能更有效,但成本更高。具有两种方法交叉的培训课程可能是一种实用的解决方案。然而,缺乏评估从机器人模拟或缝合垫开始进行机器人缝合训练的影响的研究。
这是一项在来自 3 个国家的 20 名机器人新手参与者中进行的随机对照交叉试验,他们使用直观外科手术 X 和 Xi 系统以及 SimNow(机器人模拟)和缝合垫(干实验室)进行机器人缝合训练。参与者随机分配开始机器人模拟(干预组,n=10)或缝合垫(对照组,n=10)。第一次和第二次训练后,所有参与者均在生物组织中完成机器人胆肠吻合术(HJ)。主要终点是由两名盲法评估者评估的 HJ 期间的客观结构评估技术技能(OSATS)评分。次要终点是力测量和定性分析。训练后,参与者被调查了他们的偏好。
总体而言,20 名机器人新手完成了两次培训课程,并完成了 40 次机器人 HJ。两次培训后,机器人模拟组的 OSATS 评分更高(3.3±0.9 与 2.5±0.8;p=0.049),而两组之间的最大力(N)中位数(5.0[3.2-8.0]与 3.8[2.3-12.8];p=0.739)无显著差异。在调查中,20 名参与者中的 17 名(85%)建议包括机器人模拟培训,14 名(70%)参与者首选机器人模拟培训,20 名(100%)参与者建议包括缝合垫培训。
在机器人新手进行机器人 HJ 期间,机器人模拟优先随后进行缝合垫训练的手术性能明显更好。理想情况下,包含机器人模拟和干实验室缝合的机器人缝合课程应首先进行机器人模拟。