Assessment of robotic simulation by trainees in residency programs of the southeastern section of the american urologic association

David D. Thiel, Vipul R. Patel, Todd Larson, Amy Lannen, Raymond J. Leveillee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives To assess the Southeast Section of the American Urological Association (SESAUA) trainee exposure to and thoughts on robotic simulation. Design Questionnaire-based study of SESAUA residency trainees to determine their access to robotic simulation, live robotic experience to date, and opinion regarding the adequacy of current robotic training. Setting Three trainees from each SESAUA training program were invited to Orlando, Florida for a formal 2-day robotic training course. Day 1 was a 3-component didactic session. Day 2 involved faculty directing the trainees in set tasks on a live porcine model for 4 hours and another 4 hours on the Mimic dV-Trainer (Mimic Technologies, Inc, Seattle, WA) for directed exercises. Participants Thirty-two trainees from 14 programs in the SESAUA participated in the course and filled out a 1-page, 8-item questionnaire following their simulator exposure. Results Seventeen (53.1%) trainees, including 5 urology year-3 trainees, reported never having had robotic console time. Of the trainees, 65.6% (21 of 32) had access to the Mimic dV-Trainer or Mimic "backpack" whereas 10 had no exposure to robotic simulation; 84.4% (27 of 32) felt that the simulator replicated real-life robotic console surgery and 90.6% (29 of 32) felt the simulator was helpful or would be helpful for training in their program. Trainees felt the "tubes 2" drill, which mimics a vesicourethral anastomosis, was the most difficult drill to perform. Conclusions A majority of trainees in the SESAUA have had limited to no robotic console time. A high number of resident trainees in the SESAUA have exposure to virtual reality robotic simulation. Trainees believe that the simulator replicates real-life robotic console movements and almost all believe they would be benefit from having access to robotic simulation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)571-577
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Surgical Education
Volume70
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Robotics
Internship and Residency
trainee
simulation
Mandrillus
questionnaire
Urology
virtual reality
didactics
surgery
training program
Swine
Exercise
resident
Technology
Education

Keywords

  • resident training
  • robotic prostatectomy
  • robotic surgery
  • robotic training
  • simulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Education

Cite this

Assessment of robotic simulation by trainees in residency programs of the southeastern section of the american urologic association. / Thiel, David D.; Patel, Vipul R.; Larson, Todd; Lannen, Amy; Leveillee, Raymond J.

In: Journal of Surgical Education, Vol. 70, No. 5, 01.09.2013, p. 571-577.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Thiel, David D. ; Patel, Vipul R. ; Larson, Todd ; Lannen, Amy ; Leveillee, Raymond J. / Assessment of robotic simulation by trainees in residency programs of the southeastern section of the american urologic association. In: Journal of Surgical Education. 2013 ; Vol. 70, No. 5. pp. 571-577.
@article{4d7e555c8ec848478eab52d709dfc2ef,
title = "Assessment of robotic simulation by trainees in residency programs of the southeastern section of the american urologic association",
abstract = "Objectives To assess the Southeast Section of the American Urological Association (SESAUA) trainee exposure to and thoughts on robotic simulation. Design Questionnaire-based study of SESAUA residency trainees to determine their access to robotic simulation, live robotic experience to date, and opinion regarding the adequacy of current robotic training. Setting Three trainees from each SESAUA training program were invited to Orlando, Florida for a formal 2-day robotic training course. Day 1 was a 3-component didactic session. Day 2 involved faculty directing the trainees in set tasks on a live porcine model for 4 hours and another 4 hours on the Mimic dV-Trainer (Mimic Technologies, Inc, Seattle, WA) for directed exercises. Participants Thirty-two trainees from 14 programs in the SESAUA participated in the course and filled out a 1-page, 8-item questionnaire following their simulator exposure. Results Seventeen (53.1{\%}) trainees, including 5 urology year-3 trainees, reported never having had robotic console time. Of the trainees, 65.6{\%} (21 of 32) had access to the Mimic dV-Trainer or Mimic {"}backpack{"} whereas 10 had no exposure to robotic simulation; 84.4{\%} (27 of 32) felt that the simulator replicated real-life robotic console surgery and 90.6{\%} (29 of 32) felt the simulator was helpful or would be helpful for training in their program. Trainees felt the {"}tubes 2{"} drill, which mimics a vesicourethral anastomosis, was the most difficult drill to perform. Conclusions A majority of trainees in the SESAUA have had limited to no robotic console time. A high number of resident trainees in the SESAUA have exposure to virtual reality robotic simulation. Trainees believe that the simulator replicates real-life robotic console movements and almost all believe they would be benefit from having access to robotic simulation.",
keywords = "resident training, robotic prostatectomy, robotic surgery, robotic training, simulation",
author = "Thiel, {David D.} and Patel, {Vipul R.} and Todd Larson and Amy Lannen and Leveillee, {Raymond J.}",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.04.014",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "571--577",
journal = "Journal of Surgical Education",
issn = "1931-7204",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of robotic simulation by trainees in residency programs of the southeastern section of the american urologic association

AU - Thiel, David D.

AU - Patel, Vipul R.

AU - Larson, Todd

AU - Lannen, Amy

AU - Leveillee, Raymond J.

PY - 2013/9/1

Y1 - 2013/9/1

N2 - Objectives To assess the Southeast Section of the American Urological Association (SESAUA) trainee exposure to and thoughts on robotic simulation. Design Questionnaire-based study of SESAUA residency trainees to determine their access to robotic simulation, live robotic experience to date, and opinion regarding the adequacy of current robotic training. Setting Three trainees from each SESAUA training program were invited to Orlando, Florida for a formal 2-day robotic training course. Day 1 was a 3-component didactic session. Day 2 involved faculty directing the trainees in set tasks on a live porcine model for 4 hours and another 4 hours on the Mimic dV-Trainer (Mimic Technologies, Inc, Seattle, WA) for directed exercises. Participants Thirty-two trainees from 14 programs in the SESAUA participated in the course and filled out a 1-page, 8-item questionnaire following their simulator exposure. Results Seventeen (53.1%) trainees, including 5 urology year-3 trainees, reported never having had robotic console time. Of the trainees, 65.6% (21 of 32) had access to the Mimic dV-Trainer or Mimic "backpack" whereas 10 had no exposure to robotic simulation; 84.4% (27 of 32) felt that the simulator replicated real-life robotic console surgery and 90.6% (29 of 32) felt the simulator was helpful or would be helpful for training in their program. Trainees felt the "tubes 2" drill, which mimics a vesicourethral anastomosis, was the most difficult drill to perform. Conclusions A majority of trainees in the SESAUA have had limited to no robotic console time. A high number of resident trainees in the SESAUA have exposure to virtual reality robotic simulation. Trainees believe that the simulator replicates real-life robotic console movements and almost all believe they would be benefit from having access to robotic simulation.

AB - Objectives To assess the Southeast Section of the American Urological Association (SESAUA) trainee exposure to and thoughts on robotic simulation. Design Questionnaire-based study of SESAUA residency trainees to determine their access to robotic simulation, live robotic experience to date, and opinion regarding the adequacy of current robotic training. Setting Three trainees from each SESAUA training program were invited to Orlando, Florida for a formal 2-day robotic training course. Day 1 was a 3-component didactic session. Day 2 involved faculty directing the trainees in set tasks on a live porcine model for 4 hours and another 4 hours on the Mimic dV-Trainer (Mimic Technologies, Inc, Seattle, WA) for directed exercises. Participants Thirty-two trainees from 14 programs in the SESAUA participated in the course and filled out a 1-page, 8-item questionnaire following their simulator exposure. Results Seventeen (53.1%) trainees, including 5 urology year-3 trainees, reported never having had robotic console time. Of the trainees, 65.6% (21 of 32) had access to the Mimic dV-Trainer or Mimic "backpack" whereas 10 had no exposure to robotic simulation; 84.4% (27 of 32) felt that the simulator replicated real-life robotic console surgery and 90.6% (29 of 32) felt the simulator was helpful or would be helpful for training in their program. Trainees felt the "tubes 2" drill, which mimics a vesicourethral anastomosis, was the most difficult drill to perform. Conclusions A majority of trainees in the SESAUA have had limited to no robotic console time. A high number of resident trainees in the SESAUA have exposure to virtual reality robotic simulation. Trainees believe that the simulator replicates real-life robotic console movements and almost all believe they would be benefit from having access to robotic simulation.

KW - resident training

KW - robotic prostatectomy

KW - robotic surgery

KW - robotic training

KW - simulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884163660&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884163660&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.04.014

DO - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.04.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 24016366

AN - SCOPUS:84884163660

VL - 70

SP - 571

EP - 577

JO - Journal of Surgical Education

JF - Journal of Surgical Education

SN - 1931-7204

IS - 5

ER -