RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate the Robotic Anastomosis Competency Evaluation (RACE), a validated tool that objectively quantifies surgical skills specifically for urethrovesical anastomosis (UVA), as a tool to track progress of trainees, and to determine the predictive value of RACE. METHODS: UVAs performed by trainees at our institution were evaluated using RACE over a period of two years. Trainees were supervised by an experienced robotic surgeon. Outcomes included trainee-related variables (RACE score, proportion of UVA performed by trainee, and suturing speed), and clinical outcomes (total UVA duration, postoperative urinary continence, and UVA-related complications). Significance was determined using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 51 UVAs performed by six trainees were evaluated. Trainee RACE scores (19.8 to 22.3; p=0.01) and trainee proportion of UVA (67% to 80%; p=0.003) improved significantly over time. Trainee suture speed was significantly associated with RACE score (mean speed range 0.54-0.74 sutures/minute; p=0.03). Neither urinary continence at six weeks nor six months was significantly associated with RACE score (p=0.17 and p=0.15, respectively), and only one UVA-related postoperative complication was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee RACE scores improved and proportion of UVA performed by trainees increased over time. RACE can be used as an objective measure of surgical performance during training. Strict mentor supervision allowed safe training without compromising patient outcomes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of cognitive assessment during robot-assisted surgery (RAS) to define skills in terms of cognitive engagement, mental workload, and mental state; while objectively differentiating between novice and expert surgeons. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In all, 10 surgeons with varying operative experience were assigned to beginner (BG), combined competent and proficient (CPG), and expert (EG) groups based on the Dreyfus model. The participants performed tasks for basic, intermediate and advanced skills on the da Vinci Surgical System. Participant performance was assessed using both tool-based and cognitive metrics. RESULTS: Tool-based metrics showed significant differences between the BG vs CPG and the BG vs EG, in basic skills. While performing intermediate skills, there were significant differences only on the instrument-to-instrument collisions between the BG vs CPG (2.0 vs 0.2, P = 0.028), and the BG vs EG (2.0 vs 0.1, P = 0.018). There were no significant differences between the CPG and EG for both basic and intermediate skills. However, using cognitive metrics, there were significant differences between all groups for the basic and intermediate skills. In advanced skills, there were no significant differences between the CPG and the EG except time (1116 vs 599.6 s), using tool-based metrics. However, cognitive metrics revealed significant differences between both groups. CONCLUSION: Cognitive assessment of surgeons may aid in defining levels of expertise performing complex surgical tasks once competence is achieved. Cognitive assessment may be used as an adjunct to the traditional methods for skill assessment during RAS.