Role of robotic assistance in the learning of laparoscopy: Comparison of novice students’ results in two FLS trials

Mélanie Frigenza, Jérôme Delotte, Eric Fontas, Daniel Benchimol, André Bongain, Jean Breaud

Delegation Unit for Clinical Research, Cimiez Hospital, Nice, France.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine and Fetal Medicine, University Hospital of Nice, Archet 2 Hospital, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University, Nice, France.
Department of Pediatric Surgery, Health Cooperation Group and University Hospital of Lenval, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University, Nice, France.
General Surgery and Digestive Oncology, Archet 2 Hospital, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University, Nice, France.

DOI: 10.4236/ojog.2013.32054                

Abstract

Background: To investigate the learning curve of “robotic surgery” versus “conventional laparoscopy” in two trials of the FLS program in a population of medical students with no experience in laparoscopy. Methods: A prospective trial. Students, all novices in training and surgical practice, were randomized into 2 groups: the “traditional laparoscopy” group and the “robotic assistance” group. Students were evaluated during two tests from the FLS: peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying. Results: The median laparoscopic knot completion time was significantly lower in the “robotic surgery” group (p = 0.038). Conclusions: Robotic assistance training in neophytes is effective in improving the completion time of laparoscopic knots.

Keywords

Da Vinci; Learning Curve; Medical Student; Laparoscopy

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Holloway, R.W., Patel, S.D. and Ahmad, S. (2009) Robotic surgery in gynecology. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, 98, 96-109.
[2]	Skolarus, T., Zhang, Y., Brent, K., et al. (2010) Robotic surgery in urologic oncology gathering the evidence. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10, 421-432.
[3]	Stefanidis, D., Wang, F., James, R., et al. (2010) Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surgical Endoscopy, 24, 377-382. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0578-0
[4]	Soper, N.J. and Fried, G.M. (2008) The fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery: Its time has come. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons, 93, 30-32.
[5]	Delotte, J., Mialon, O., Bouaziz, S., et al. (2011) Is there a real place for robotics in proximal tubal surgery? Gynecol Obstet Fertil, 39, 509-510. doi:10.1016/j.gyobfe.2011.07.001
[6]	Botden, S., De Hingh, I. and Jakimowicz, J. (2009) Suturing training in augmented reality: Gaining proficiency in suturing skills faster. Surgical Endoscopy, 23, 2131-2137. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0240-2
[7]	De Ugarte, D., Etzioni, D., Gracia, C., et al. (2003) Robotic surgery and resident training. Surgical Endoscopy, 17, 960-963. doi:10.1007/s00464-002-8745-6
[8]	Sroka, G., Feldman, L.S., Vassiliou, M.C., et al. (2010) Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room-a randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Surgery, 199, 115-120. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.07.035
[9]	Edelman, D.A., Mattos, M.A. and Bouwman, D.L. (2010) FLS skill retention (learning) in first year surgery residents. Journal of Surgical Research, 163, 24-28. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2010.03.057