Premium
Training robotic surgery in urology: experience and opinions of robot urologists
Author(s) -
Brinkman W. M.,
Schout B. M. A.,
Rietbergen J. B.,
Vries A. H.,
Poel H. G.,
Koldewijn E. L.,
Witjes J. A.,
Merriënboer J. J. G.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the international journal of medical robotics and computer assisted surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.556
H-Index - 53
eISSN - 1478-596X
pISSN - 1478-5951
DOI - 10.1002/rcs.1631
Subject(s) - robotic surgery , urology , computer science , medicine , medical physics , general surgery
Background To answer the research questions: (a) what were the training pathways followed by the first generation of robot urologists; and (b) what are their opinions on the ideal training for the future generation? Methods Data were gathered with a questionnaire and semi‐structured interviews in a mixed‐method research design. Results The results show that training approaches differed from hardly any formal training to complete self‐initiated training programmes, with all available learning resources. The median number of supervised procedures at the start of robot‐assisted laparoscopy was five (range 0–100). Before patient‐related console time, respondents indicated that the minimum training of robot trainees should consist of: live observations (94% indicated this as essential), video observations (90%), knowledge (88%), table assisting (87%) and basic skills (70%). Conclusion The first generation of robot urologists used different training approaches to start robotic surgery. There is a need for a structured and compulsory training programme for robotic surgery. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.