Introduction: Robot-assisted surgery is often performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. However, this technique requires a different set of technical skills and surgeons are expected to alternate between these approaches. The aim of this study is to investigate the crossover effects when switching between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. Methods: An international multicentre crossover study was conducted. Trainees with distinctly different levels of experience were divided into three groups (novice, intermediate, expert). Each trainee performed six trials of a standardized suturing task using a laparoscopic box trainer and six trials using the da Vinci surgical robot. Both systems were equipped with the ForceSense system, measuring five force-based parameters for objective assessment of tissue handling skills. Statistical comparison was done between the sixth and seventh trial to identify transition effects. Unexpected changes in parameter outcomes after the seventh trial were further investigated. Results: A total of 720 trials, performed by 60 participants, were analysed. The expert group increased their tissue handling forces with 46% (maximum impulse 11.5 N/s to 16.8 N/s, p = 0.05), when switching from robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopy. When switching from laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery, intermediates and experts significantly decreased in motion efficiency (time (sec), resp. 68 vs. 100, p = 0.05, and 44 vs. 84, p = 0.05). Further investigation between the seventh and ninth trial showed that the intermediate group increased their force exertion with 78% (5.1 N vs. 9.1 N, p = 0.04), when switching to robot-assisted surgery. Conclusion: The crossover effects in technical skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery are highly depended on the prior experience with laparoscopic surgery. Where experts can alternate between approaches without impairment of technical skills, novices and intermediates should be aware of decay in efficiency of movement and tissue handling skills that could impact patient safety. Therefore, additional simulation training is advised to prevent from undesired events.

Introduction: Although robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly performed, objective assessment of technical skills is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide validity evidence for objective assessment of technical skills for robotic-assisted surgery. Methods: An international multicenter study was conducted with participants from the academic hospitals Heidelberg University Hospital (Germany, Heidelberg) and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (The Netherlands, Amsterdam). Trainees with distinctly different levels of robotic surgery experience were divided into three groups (novice, intermediate, expert) and enrolled in a training curriculum. Each trainee performed six trials of a standardized suturing task using the da Vinci Surgical System. Using the ForceSense system, five force-based parameters were analyzed, for objective assessment of tissue handling skills. Mann–Whitney U test and linear regression were used to analyze performance differences and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to analyze skills progression. Results: A total of 360 trials, performed by 60 participants, were analyzed. Significant differences between the novices, intermediates and experts were observed regarding the total completion time (41 s vs 29 s vs 22 s p = 0.003), mean non zero force (29 N vs 33 N vs 19 N p = 0.032), maximum impulse (40 Ns vs 31 Ns vs 20 Ns p = 0.001) and force volume (38 N³ vs 32 N³ vs 22 N³p = 0.018). Furthermore, the experts showed better results in mean non-zero force (22 N vs 13 N p = 0.015), maximum impulse (24 Ns vs 17 Ns p = 0.043) and force volume (25 N³ vs 16 N³p = 0.025) compared to the intermediates (p ≤ 0.05). Lastly, learning curve improvement was observed for the total task completion time, mean non-zero force, maximum impulse and force volume (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusion: Construct validity for force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in robot-assisted surgery is established. It is advised to incorporate objective assessment and feedback in robot-assisted surgery training programs to determine technical proficiency and, potentially, to prevent tissue trauma.

The complexity of handheld steerable laparoscopic instruments (SLI) may impair the learning curve compared to conventional instruments when first utilized. This study aimed to provide the current state of interest in the use of SLI, the current use of these in daily practice and the type of training which is conducted before using SLI in the operating room (OR) on real patients. An online survey was distributed by European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) Executive Office to all active members, between January 4th and February 3rd, 2020. The survey consisted of 14 questions regarding the usage and training of steerable laparoscopic instruments. A total of 83 members responded, coming from 33 different countries. Twenty three percent of the respondents using SLI, were using the instruments routinely and of these 21% had not received any formal training in advance of using the instruments in real patients. Of all responding EAES members, 41% considered the instruments to potentially compromise patient safety due to their complexity, learning curve and the inexperience of the surgeons. The respondents reported the three most important aspects of a possible steerable laparoscopic instruments training curriculum to be: hands-on training, safe tissue handling and suturing practice. Finally, a major part of the respondents consider force/pressure feedback data to be of significant importance for implementation of training and assessment of safe laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Training and assessment of skills regarding safe implementation of steerable laparoscopic instruments is lacking. The respondents stressed the need for specific hands-on training during which feedback and assessment of skills should be guaranteed before operating on real patients.

Background: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) potentially reduces workload and shortens the surgical learning curve compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the initial learning phase for novices. Methods: In a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed both LC and RAC on a cadaveric porcine model. After standardized instructions and basic skill training, group 1 started with RAC and then performed LC, while group 2 started with LC and then performed RAC. The primary endpoint was surgical performance measured with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, secondary endpoints included operating time, complications (liver damage, gallbladder perforations, vessel damage), force applied to tissue, and subjective workload assessment. Results: Surgical performance was better for RAC than for LC for total OSATS (RAC = 77.4 ± 7.9 vs. LC = 73.8 ± 9.4; p = 0.025, global OSATS (RAC = 27.2 ± 1.0 vs. LC = 26.5 ± 1.6; p = 0.012, and task specific OSATS score (RAC = 50.5 ± 7.5 vs. LC = 47.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.037). There were less complications with RAC than with LC (10 (25.6%) vs. 26 (65.0%), p = 0.006) but no difference in operating times (RAC = 77.0 ± 15.3 vs. LC = 75.5 ± 15.3 min; p = 0.517). Force applied to tissue was similar. Students found RAC less physical demanding and less frustrating than LC. Conclusions: Novices performed their first cholecystectomies with better performance and less complications with RAS than with CL, while operating time showed no differences. Students perceived less subjective workload for RAS than for CL. Unlike our expectations, the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic system did not lead to higher force application during RAC than LC and did not increase tissue damage. These results show potential advantages for RAS over CL for surgical novices while performing their first RAC and LC using an ex vivo cadaveric porcine model. Registration number: researchregistry6029 Graphic abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].