Search

Objective: To determine whether proficiency‐based progression (PBP) training leads to better robotic surgical performance compared to traditional training (TT), given that the value of PBP training for learning robotic surgical skills is unclear. Materials and Methods: The PROVESA trial is a multicentric, prospective, randomized and blinded clinical study comparing PBP training with TT for robotic suturing and knot‐tying anastomosis skills. A total of 36 robotic surgery‐naïve junior residents were recruited from 16 training sites and 12 residency training programmes. Participants were randomly allocated to metric‐based PBP training or the current standard of care TT, and compared at the end of training. The primary outcome was percentage of participants reaching the predefined proficiency benchmark. Secondary outcomes were the numbers of procedure steps and errors made. Results: Of the group that received TT, 3/18 reached the proficiency benchmark versus 12/18 of the PBP group (i.e. the PBP group were ~10 times as likely to demonstrate proficiency [P = 0.006]). The PBP group demonstrated a 51% reduction in number of performance errors from baseline to the final assessment (18.3 vs 8.9). The TT group demonstrated a marginal improvement (15.94 vs 15.44) in errors made. Conclusions: The PROVESA trial is the first prospective randomized controlled trial on basic skills training in robotic surgery. Implementation of a PBP training methodology resulted in superior surgical performance for robotic suturing and knot‐tying anastomosis performance. Compared to TT, better surgical quality could be obtained by implementing PBP training for basic skills in robotic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and seek consensus from procedure experts on the metrics that best characterise a reference robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and determine if the metrics distinguished between the objectively assessed RARP performance of experienced and novice urologists, as identifying objective performance metrics for surgical training in robotic surgery is imperative for patient safety. Materials and methods: In Study 1, the metrics, i.e. 12 phases of the procedure, 81 steps, 245 errors and 110 critical errors for a reference RARP were developed and then presented to an international Delphi panel of 19 experienced urologists. In Study 2, 12 very experienced surgeons (VES) who had performed >500 RARPs and 12 novice urology surgeons performed a RARP, which was video recorded and assessed by two experienced urologists blinded as to subject and group. Percentage agreement between experienced urologists for the Delphi meeting and Mann–Whitney U‐ and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for construct validation of the newly identified RARP metrics. Results: At the Delphi panel, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of the metrics for a reference RARP. In Study 2, the results showed that the VES performed ~4% more procedure steps and made 72% fewer procedure errors than the novices (P = 0.027). Phases VIIa and VIIb (i.e. neurovascular bundle dissection) best discriminated between the VES and novices. Limitations: VES whose performance was in the bottom half of their group demonstrated considerable error variability and made five‐times as many errors as the other half of the group (P = 0.006). Conclusions: The international Delphi panel reached high‐level consensus on the RARP metrics that reliably distinguished between the objectively scored procedure performance of VES and novices. Reliable and valid performance metrics of RARP are imperative for effective and quality assured surgical training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies have shown that PBP training reduces objectively assessed intra-operative procedure performance errors by ~60% in comparison to traditional training programmes, including not only the Halstedian model but also newer approaches, such as simulation-based training, mastery learning and proficiency-based learning [[5]]. The general surgical exposure of European urology residents in the performance of invasive procedures, their confidence in the execution, and the overall satisfaction with their training is low [[1]]. The final ambition of the project is to provide European urology trainers with high-quality teaching tools and compendia, laying the foundation for a standardized European training programme for residents based on a scientific training approach. [Extracted from the article]