Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Microvascular Anastomosis in the Rat

Abstract

We hypothesized that the learning plateau and learning rate of robotic-assisted microvascular anastomosis could be estimated statistically using curve-fitting method. Three surgeons with various microsurgical experiences performed 20 microsurgical anastomoses of the rat femoral artery using the da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). We evaluated the anastomosis time, patency rate, and quality of anastomosis. Objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) score which is introduced to assess surgical dexterity was also measured. The average starting anastomosis time was 101 ± 30 minutes, and the estimated mean learning plateau was 33 ± 15 minutes. The estimated mean learning rate for anastomosis time was 22 ± 5 trials and the estimated mean learning rate for OSATS score was 8 ± 1 trials. Overall patency rate was 90 ± 5%. Anastomosis patency correlated with OSATS score and quality of anastomosis rather than anastomosis time. Important aspects of learning curve can be estimated by fitting inverse curves for robotic-assisted microvascular anastomosis. As anastomosis time does not necessarily correlate with the patency rate, OSATS score might be a valuable tool to evaluate surgeons during training for this complicated surgical task.

Keywords

robotic microsurgery - learning curve - rats

• References

• 1 Tamai S. History of microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (6, Suppl) e282-e294
• 2 Damiano RJ Jr, Reichenspurner H, Ducko CT. Robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting: current state of the art. Adv Card Surg 2000; 12: 37-57
• 3 Taleb C, Nectoux E, Liverneaux PA. Telemicrosurgery: a feasibility study in a rat model. Chir Main 2008; 27 (2–3) 104-108
• 4 Karamanoukian RL, Finley DS, Evans GR, Karamanoukian HL. Feasibility of robotic-assisted microvascular anastomoses in plastic surgery. J Reconstr Microsurg 2006; 22 (6) 429-431
• 5 Le Roux PD, Das H, Esquenazi S, Kelly PJ. Robot-assisted microsurgery: a feasibility study in the rat. Neurosurgery 2001; 48 (3) 584-589
• 6 Taleb C, Nectoux E, Liverneaux P. Limb replantation with two robots: a feasibility study in a pig model. Microsurgery 2009; 29 (3) 232-235
• 7 Nectoux E, Taleb C, Liverneaux P. Nerve repair in telemicrosurgery: an experimental study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2009; 25 (4) 261-265
• 8 Katz RD, Rosson GD, Taylor JA, Singh NK. Robotics in microsurgery: use of a surgical robot to perform a free flap in a pig. Microsurgery 2005; 25 (7) 566-569
• 9 Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT. Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5 (12) 1-79
• 10 Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Richardson DL , et al. Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (6) 1207-1213
• 11 Karamanoukian RL, Bui T, McConnell MP, Evans GR, Karamanoukian HL. Transfer of training in robotic-assisted microvascular surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (6) 662-665
• 12 Cook JA, Ramsay CR, Fayers P. Using the literature to quantify the learning curve: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23 (2) 255-260
• 13 Rutkow IM. William Stewart Halsted and the Germanic influence on education and training programs in surgery. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1978; 147 (4) 602-606
• 14 Balasundaram I, Aggarwal R, Darzi LA. Development of a training curriculum for microsurgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 48 (8) 598-606
• 15 Klein I, Steger U, Timmermann W, Thiede A, Gassel HJ. Microsurgical training course for clinicians and scientists at a German University hospital: a 10-year experience. Microsurgery 2003; 23 (5) 461-465
• 16 Atkins JL, Kalu PU, Lannon DA, Green CJ, Butler PE. Training in microsurgical skills: does course-based learning deliver?. Microsurgery 2005; 25 (6) 481-485
• 17 Chan WY, Matteucci P, Southern SJ. Validation of microsurgical models in microsurgery training and competence: a review. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (5) 494-499
• 18 Knight CG, Lorincz A, Cao A, Gidell K, Klein MD, Langenburg SE. Computer-assisted, robot-enhanced open microsurgery in an animal model. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2005; 15 (2) 182-185
• 19 Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N. Assessing operative skill. Needs to become more objective. BMJ 1999; 318 (7188) 887-888
• 20 Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R , et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997; 84 (2) 273-278
• 21 Nielsen PE, Foglia LM, Mandel LS, Chow GE. Objective structured assessment of technical skills for episiotomy repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (5) 1257-1260
• 22 Siddiqui NY, Stepp KJ, Lasch SJ, Mangel JM, Wu JM. Objective structured assessment of technical skills for repair of fourth-degree perineal lacerations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (6) 676–e1–e6
• 23 Swift SE, Carter JF. Institution and validation of an observed structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) for obstetrics and gynecology residents and faculty. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195 (2) 617-621 ; discussion 621–623
• 24 VanBlaricom AL, Goff BA, Chinn M, Icasiano MM, Nielsen P, Mandel L. A new curriculum for hysteroscopy training as demonstrated by an objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (5) 1856-1865
• 25 De Ugarte DA, Etzioni DA, Gracia C, Atkinson JB. Robotic surgery and resident training. Surg Endosc 2003; 17 (6) 960-963
• 26 Figert PL, Park AE, Witzke DB, Schwartz RW. Transfer of training in acquiring laparoscopic skills. J Am Coll Surg 2001; 193 (5) 533-537