Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Learning curve using robotic surgery

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) surgical system is being used by an increasing number of surgeons across several surgical specialties. The robotic interface is different not only to open surgery, but also to laparoscopy because it involves remote surgical control, stereoscopic vision, and lack of haptic feedback. As the transition is made from traditional open to robotic surgery, factors such as learning of robotic skills, assessment of pro.ciency in robotics, and structured training for urologists in practice and residents assumes importance. Understanding how the robotic surgical technique is learned and how such learning can be best assessed will enable us to de.ne protocols for training and set standards for pro.ciency. Learning curve and surgical dexterity are two parameters that are used to compare surgical learning and training. This article presents the current gold standard for assessing skill training and compares surgical skill acquisition and pro.ciency using conventional laparoscopy and robotic interfaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Sanjeev K, Menon M: Robotics in laparoscopic urology. Min Invasive Ther 2005, 14:62–70. An extensive review of the current role of robotics in urology, including techniques of robotic-assisted urologic procedures and outcomes published in literature.

    Google Scholar 

  2. McLeod IK, Mair EA, Melder PC: Potential applications of the da Vinci minimally invasive surgical robotic system in otolaryngology. Ear Nose Throat J 2005, 84:483–487.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kariv Y, Delaney CP: Robotics in colorectal surgery. Minerva Chir 2005, 60:401–416.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonatti J, Schachner T, Bonaros N, et al.: Ongoing procedure development in robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB). Heart Surg Forum 2005, 8:287–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Di Lorenzo N, Coscarella G, Faraci L, et al.: Robotic systems and surgical education. JSLS 2005, 9:3–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bollens R, Sandhu S, Roumeguere T, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the learning curve. Curr Opin Urol 2005, 15:79–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hernandez J, Bann S, Munz K, et al.: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated task on the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 2004, 18:372–378. A very succinct paper explaining current gold standard in assessing surgical dexterity.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: What is the learning curve? Urology 2005, 66:105–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frede T, Erdogru T, Zukosky D, et al.: Comparison of training modalities for performing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience with 1000 patients. J Urol 2005, 174:673–678.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Poulakis V, Dillenberg W, Moeckel M, et al.: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: prospective evaluation of the learning curve. Eur Urol 2005, 2:167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Watson D, Baigrie R, Jamieson G: A learning curve for laparoscopic fundoplication: de.nable, avoidable, or a waste of time. Ann Surg 1996, 224:198–203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Maniar H, Council M, Prasad S, et al.: Comparison of skill training with robotic systems and traditional endoscopy: implications on training and adoption. J Surg Res 2005, 125:23–29. A very thorough comparison of learning curve using conventional laparoscopy and robotic interface.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Korndorffer J, Dunne B, Sierra R, et al.: Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 2005, 201:23–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis J, et al.: Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 2004, 18:790–795.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Darzi A, Smith S, Taf.nder N: Assessing operative skill. Br Med J 1999, 318:887–888.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramsay C, Grant A, Wallace S, et al.: Assessment of learning curve in health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000, 16:1095–1108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Datta V, Mackay S, Mandalia M, Darzi A: The use of electromagnetic motion tracking analysis to objectively measure open surgical skill in the laboratory based model. J Am Coll Surg 2001, 193:479–485.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Martin J, Regehr G, Reznick R, et al.: Objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997, 84:273–278. This paper explains the current gold standard for assessing learning curve and details future developments in technology for assessing learning in surgery.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, et al.: Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills. J Endourol 2004, 18:63–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Garcia-Ruiz A, Gagner M, Miller J, et al.: Manual versus robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks. Arch Surg 1998, 133:957–961.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, et al.: Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: Is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 2002, 60:39–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Prasad S, Prasad S, Maniar C, et al.: Surgical robotics: impact of motion scaling on task performance. J Am Coll Surg 2004, 199:863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Obek C, Hubka M, Porter M, et al.: Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic skill acquisition: implications for training. J Endourol 2005, 19:1098–1103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nio D, Balm R, Maartense S, et al.: The ef.cacy of robotassisted versus conventional laparoscopic vascular anastomoses in an experimental model. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004, 27:283–286.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sung GT, Gill IS: Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the Da Vinci and Zeus systems. Urology 2001, 58:893–898.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jourdan I, Dutson A, Garcia T, et al.: Stereoscopic vision provides a signi.cant advantage for precision robotic surgery. Br J Surg 2004, 91:879–885.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanna G, Drew T, Clinch P, et al.: Psychomotor skills for endoscopic manipulations: differing abilities between right- and left-handed individuals. Ann Surg 1997, 225:333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV: Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003, 170:1738–1741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Patel V, Tully A, Holmes R, Lindsay J: Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting. Learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005, 174:269–272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjeev Kaul MD, MCh (Urol).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaul, S., Shah, N.L. & Menon, M. Learning curve using robotic surgery. Curr Urol Rep 7, 125–129 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-006-0071-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-006-0071-4

Keywords

Navigation