Publicatie
Publicatie datum
Current training on the basics of robotic surgery in the Netherlands: time for a multidisciplinary approach?
Brinkman, W., Angst, I. de, Schreuder, H., Schout, B.M.A., Draaisma, W., Verweij, L., Hendrikx, A., Poel, H. van der. Current training on the basics of robotic surgery in the Netherlands: time for a multidisciplinary approach? Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques: 2016
Introduction
The following research questions were answered:
(1) What are the training pathways followed by the current robot professionals?
(2) Are there any differences between the surgical specialties in robot training and robot use?
(3) What is their opinion about multidisciplinary basic skills training?
Methods
An online questionnaire was sent to 91 robot professionals in The Netherlands. The questionnaire contained 21 multiple-choice questions focusing on demographics, received robot training, and their opinion on basic skills training in robotic surgery.
Results
The response rate was 62 % (n = 56): 13 general surgeons, 16 gynecologists, and 27 urologists. The urologists performed significantly more robotic procedures than surgeons and gynecologists. The kind of training of all professionals varied from a training program by Intuitive Surgical, master-apprenticeship with or without duo console, fellowship, and self-designed training programs. The training did neither differ significantly among the different specialties nor the year of starting robotic surgery. Majority of respondents favor an obliged training program including an examination for the basics of robot skills training.
Conclusion
Training of the current robot professionals is mostly dependent on local circumstances and the manufacturer of the robot system. Training is independent of the year of start with robotic surgery and speciality. To guarantee the quality of future training of residents and fellows in robot-assisted surgery, clear training goals should be formulated and implemented. Since this study shows that current training of different specialities does not differ, training in robotic surgery could be started by a multidisciplinary basic skills training and assessment. (aut. ref.)
The following research questions were answered:
(1) What are the training pathways followed by the current robot professionals?
(2) Are there any differences between the surgical specialties in robot training and robot use?
(3) What is their opinion about multidisciplinary basic skills training?
Methods
An online questionnaire was sent to 91 robot professionals in The Netherlands. The questionnaire contained 21 multiple-choice questions focusing on demographics, received robot training, and their opinion on basic skills training in robotic surgery.
Results
The response rate was 62 % (n = 56): 13 general surgeons, 16 gynecologists, and 27 urologists. The urologists performed significantly more robotic procedures than surgeons and gynecologists. The kind of training of all professionals varied from a training program by Intuitive Surgical, master-apprenticeship with or without duo console, fellowship, and self-designed training programs. The training did neither differ significantly among the different specialties nor the year of starting robotic surgery. Majority of respondents favor an obliged training program including an examination for the basics of robot skills training.
Conclusion
Training of the current robot professionals is mostly dependent on local circumstances and the manufacturer of the robot system. Training is independent of the year of start with robotic surgery and speciality. To guarantee the quality of future training of residents and fellows in robot-assisted surgery, clear training goals should be formulated and implemented. Since this study shows that current training of different specialities does not differ, training in robotic surgery could be started by a multidisciplinary basic skills training and assessment. (aut. ref.)
Introduction
The following research questions were answered:
(1) What are the training pathways followed by the current robot professionals?
(2) Are there any differences between the surgical specialties in robot training and robot use?
(3) What is their opinion about multidisciplinary basic skills training?
Methods
An online questionnaire was sent to 91 robot professionals in The Netherlands. The questionnaire contained 21 multiple-choice questions focusing on demographics, received robot training, and their opinion on basic skills training in robotic surgery.
Results
The response rate was 62 % (n = 56): 13 general surgeons, 16 gynecologists, and 27 urologists. The urologists performed significantly more robotic procedures than surgeons and gynecologists. The kind of training of all professionals varied from a training program by Intuitive Surgical, master-apprenticeship with or without duo console, fellowship, and self-designed training programs. The training did neither differ significantly among the different specialties nor the year of starting robotic surgery. Majority of respondents favor an obliged training program including an examination for the basics of robot skills training.
Conclusion
Training of the current robot professionals is mostly dependent on local circumstances and the manufacturer of the robot system. Training is independent of the year of start with robotic surgery and speciality. To guarantee the quality of future training of residents and fellows in robot-assisted surgery, clear training goals should be formulated and implemented. Since this study shows that current training of different specialities does not differ, training in robotic surgery could be started by a multidisciplinary basic skills training and assessment. (aut. ref.)
The following research questions were answered:
(1) What are the training pathways followed by the current robot professionals?
(2) Are there any differences between the surgical specialties in robot training and robot use?
(3) What is their opinion about multidisciplinary basic skills training?
Methods
An online questionnaire was sent to 91 robot professionals in The Netherlands. The questionnaire contained 21 multiple-choice questions focusing on demographics, received robot training, and their opinion on basic skills training in robotic surgery.
Results
The response rate was 62 % (n = 56): 13 general surgeons, 16 gynecologists, and 27 urologists. The urologists performed significantly more robotic procedures than surgeons and gynecologists. The kind of training of all professionals varied from a training program by Intuitive Surgical, master-apprenticeship with or without duo console, fellowship, and self-designed training programs. The training did neither differ significantly among the different specialties nor the year of starting robotic surgery. Majority of respondents favor an obliged training program including an examination for the basics of robot skills training.
Conclusion
Training of the current robot professionals is mostly dependent on local circumstances and the manufacturer of the robot system. Training is independent of the year of start with robotic surgery and speciality. To guarantee the quality of future training of residents and fellows in robot-assisted surgery, clear training goals should be formulated and implemented. Since this study shows that current training of different specialities does not differ, training in robotic surgery could be started by a multidisciplinary basic skills training and assessment. (aut. ref.)