Fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery within the current hospital setting: an achievable goal?. Issue 11 (15th March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Waters, Peadar S.; Flynn, Julie; Larach, Jose T.; Fernando, Diharah; Peacock, Oliver; Foster, Jake D.; Flood, Michael; McCormick, Jacob J.; Warrier, Satish K.; Heriot, Alexander G.
• Is Part Of: ANZ journal of surgery. Volume 91:Issue 11(2021)
• Page Start: 2337
• Page End: 2344
• Publication Date: 2021-03-15
• Subjects: colon cancer -- colorectal fellowship -- fellowship training -- rectal cancer -- robotic surgery -- surgical training; Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1111/ans.16677
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1445-1433

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Although currently limited, the requirement for colorectal trainees to attain skills in robotic surgery is likely to increase due to further utilization of robotic platforms globally. The aim of the study is to describe the training programme utilized and assess outcomes of fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery. Methods: A structured robotic training programme was generated across a tertiary hospital setting. Review of four prospectively maintained fellow operative logbooks was performed to assess caseload and skill acquisition. Operative and patient‐related outcomes were compared with consultant trainer performed cases. Data were analysed using R with a P < 0.05 considered significant. Results: The structured robotic training scheme is a two‐tiered system over a 12‐month period. The trainer‐directed pathway comprised of a robotic console safety course followed by cart‐side assisting, a wet lab animal course, dual‐console accreditation training course and onsite proctoring, prior to becoming an independent console surgeon. Over 2 years, 265 robotic ( n = 143 primary/component surgeon) cases were undertaken with fellows A, B, C and D involved in 63, 77, 75 and 50 robotic colorectal cases, respectively. Individual learning curves revealed independent procedure competency at cases 11, 14, 15 and 12, respectively, for robotic anterior resection. There was no significant difference observed in operative time ( P = 0.39), blood loss ( P = 0.41), lymph node harvest ( P = 0.35), conversion rates (2% versus 4%), anastomotic leaks (1% versus 3%) and R0 resection rates (100% versus 98% colonic, 96% versus 96% rectal, P = 0.48) between surgical fellows and consultant trainers. Clavien‐Dindo(III‐IV) complications were similar (10% versus 6%, P = 0.25) with no mortalities encountered. Conclusion: It is feasible and safe to train fellows in robotic colorectal surgery without compromise of operative‐ and patient‐related outcomes. Abstract : Although currently limited, the requirement for colorectal trainees to attain skills in robotic surgery is likely to increase due to further utilization of robotic platforms globally. A structured robotic training scheme consisting of a two‐tiered system over a 12‐month period was instituted consisting of a trainer‐directed pathway comprised of a robotic console safety course followed by cart‐side assisting, a wet lab animal course, dual‐console accreditation training course and onsite proctoring, prior to becoming an independent console surgeon. In conclusion, it is feasible and safe to train fellows in robotic colorectal surgery without compromise of operative‐ and patient‐related outcomes.