nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.12.2024 | Review

Measures of performance and proficiency in robotic assisted surgery: a systematic review

verfasst von: Charlotte El-Sayed, A. Yiu, J. Burke, P. Vaughan-Shaw, J. Todd, P. Lin, Z. Kasmani, C. Munsch, L. Rooshenas, M. Campbell, S. P. Bach

Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has seen a global rise in adoption. Despite this, there is not a standardised training curricula nor a standardised measure of performance. We performed a systematic review across the surgical specialties in RAS and evaluated tools used to assess surgeons’ technical performance. Using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for full texts published on or after January 2020–January 2022. Observational studies and RCTs were included; review articles and systematic reviews were excluded. The papers’ quality and bias score were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Score for the observational studies and Cochrane Risk Tool for the RCTs. The initial search yielded 1189 papers of which 72 fit the eligibility criteria. 27 unique performance metrics were identified. Global assessments were the most common tool of assessment (n = 13); the most used was GEARS (Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills). 11 metrics (42%) were objective tools of performance. Automated performance metrics (APMs) were the most widely used objective metrics whilst the remaining (n = 15, 58%) were subjective. The results demonstrate variation in tools used to assess technical performance in RAS. A large proportion of the metrics are subjective measures which increases the risk of bias amongst users. A standardised objective metric which measures all domains of technical performance from global to cognitive is required. The metric should be applicable to all RAS procedures and easily implementable. Automated performance metrics (APMs) have demonstrated promise in their wide use of accurate measures.

Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, Oerline M, Carlin AM, Nunn AR et al (2013) Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 369(15):1434–1442PubMedCrossRef

Curtis NJ, Foster JD, Miskovic D, Brown CSB, Hewett PJ, Abbott S et al (2020) Association of surgical skill assessment with clinical outcomes in cancer surgery. JAMA Surg 155(7):590–598

Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat A-HS, Dellinger EP et al (2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 360(5):491–499PubMedCrossRef

Jung JJ, Juni P, Lebovic G, Grantcharov T (2020) First-year analysis of the operating room black box study. Ann Surg 271(1):122–127PubMedCrossRef

Garbens A, Goldenberg M, Wallis CJD, Tricco A, Grantcharov TP (2018) The cost of intraoperative adverse events in abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg 215(1):163–170PubMedCrossRef

2023 IArAahwacCi-s-iAtF. [

Bravi CA, Paciotti M, Balestrazzi E, Piro A, Piramide F, Peraire M et al (2023) Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Hugo RAS surgical system: initial experience at a high-volume robotic center. Eur Urol Focus 9(4):642–644

Butterworth J, Sadry M, Julian D, Haig F (2021) Assessment of the training program for Versius, a new innovative robotic system for use in minimal access surgery. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol 3(1):e000057PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

McCrum ML, Valmont T, Price RR (2020) Developing a surgical quality improvement program for resource-limited settings. JAMA Surg 155(12):1160–1161

10.

Dixon F, Keeler BD (2020) Robotic surgery: training, competence assessment and credentialing. Bull R Coll Surg Engl 102(7):302–306CrossRef

11.

Fleming CA, Ali O, Clements JM, Hirniak J, King M, Mohan HM et al (2021) Pan-specialty access to robotic surgery in surgical training. Br J Surg 108(7):e245–e246PubMedCrossRef

12.

Challacombe B, Ahmed K, Soomro N, Dasgupta P, Khan M, Cross W et al (2015) British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) robotic surgery curriculum: guideline for training. BAUS Business, London

13.

Burke JR, Fleming CA, King M, El-Sayed C, Bolton WS, Munsch C et al (2023) Utilising an accelerated Delphi process to develop consensus on the requirement and components of a pre-procedural core robotic surgery curriculum. J Robot Surg 17(4):1443–1455

14.

Younes MM, Larkins K, To G, Burke G, Heriot A, Warrier S et al (2023) What are clinically relevant performance metrics in robotic surgery? A systematic review of the literature. J Robot Surg 17(2):335–350PubMedCrossRef

15.

Chen J, Cheng N, Cacciamani G, Oh P, Lin-Brande M, Remulla D et al (2019) Objective assessment of robotic surgical technical skill: a systematic review. J Urol 201(3):461–469PubMedCrossRef

16.

Martin JR, Stefanidis D, Dorin RP, Goh AC, Satava RM, Levy JS (2021) Demonstrating the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) curriculum on the RobotiX Mentor Virtual Reality Simulation Platform. J Robot Surg 15(2):187–193PubMedCrossRef

17.

Gomez Ruiz M, Tou S, Gallagher AG, Cagigas Fernandez C, Cristobal Poch L, Matzel KE (2022) Intraoperative robotic-assisted low anterior rectal resection performance assessment using procedure-specific binary metrics and a global rating scale. BJS Open 6(3)

18.

Chow AK, Wong R, Monda S, Bhatt R, Sands KG, Vetter J et al (2021) Ex vivo porcine model for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy simulation at a high-volume tertiary center: resident perception and validation assessment using the global evaluative assessment of robotic skills tool. J Endourol 35(6):878–884PubMedCrossRef

19.

Ghazi A, Melnyk R, Hung AJ, Collins J, Ertefaie A, Saba P et al (2021) Multi-institutional validation of a perfused robot-assisted partial nephrectomy procedural simulation platform utilizing clinically relevant objective metrics of simulators (CROMS). BJU Int 127(6):645–653PubMedCrossRef

20.

Yu N, Saadat H, Finelli A, Lee JY, Singal RK, Grantcharov TP et al (2021) Quantifying the “Assistant Effect” in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): measures of technical performance. J Surg Res 260:307–314PubMedCrossRef

21.

Dilley J, Singh H, Pratt P, Omar I, Darzi A, Mayer E (2020) Visual behaviour in robotic surgery-demonstrating the validity of the simulated environment. Int J Med Robot 16(2):e2075PubMedCrossRef

22.

Timberlake MD, Garbens A, Schlomer BJ, Kavoussi NL, Kern AJM, Peters CA et al (2020) Design and validation of a low-cost, high-fidelity model for robotic pyeloplasty simulation training. J Pediatr Urol 16(3):332–339PubMedCrossRef

23.

Sanchez R, Rodriguez O, Rosciano J, Vegas L, Bond V, Rojas A et al (2016) Robotic surgery training: construct validity of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). J Robot Surg 10(3):227–231PubMedCrossRef

24.

Witthaus MW, Farooq S, Melnyk R, Campbell T, Saba P, Mathews E et al (2020) Incorporation and validation of clinically relevant performance metrics of simulation (CRPMS) into a novel full-immersion simulation platform for nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (NS-RARP) utilizing three-dimensional printing and hydrogel casting technology. BJU Int 125(2):322–332PubMedCrossRef

25.

Hoogenes J, Wong N, Al-Harbi B, Kim KS, Vij S, Bolognone E et al (2018) A randomized comparison of 2 robotic virtual reality simulators and evaluation of trainees’ skills transfer to a simulated robotic urethrovesical anastomosis task. Urology 111:110–115PubMedCrossRef

26.

Dubin AK, Smith R, Julian D, Tanaka A, Mattingly P (2017) A comparison of robotic simulation performance on basic virtual reality skills: simulator subjective versus objective assessment tools. J Minim Invas Gynecol 24(7):1184–1189CrossRef

27.

Guni A, Raison N, Challacombe B, Khan S, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2018) Development of a technical checklist for the assessment of suturing in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 32(11):4402–4407PubMedCrossRef

28.

Mills JT, Hougen HY, Bitner D, Krupski TL, Schenkman NS (2017) Does robotic surgical simulator performance correlate with surgical skill? J Surg Educ 74(6):1052–1056PubMedCrossRef

29.

Hung AJ, Chen J, Jarc A, Hatcher D, Djaladat H, Gill IS (2018) Development and validation of objective performance metrics for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a pilot study. J Urol 199(1):296–304PubMedCrossRef

30.

Goldenberg MG, Goldenberg L, Grantcharov TP (2017) Surgeon performance predicts early continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 31(9):858–863PubMedCrossRef

31.

Hung AJ, Bottyan T, Clifford TG, Serang S, Nakhoda ZK, Shah SH et al (2017) Structured learning for robotic surgery utilizing a proficiency score: a pilot study. World J Urol 35(1):27–34PubMedCrossRef

32.

Aghazadeh MA, Mercado MA, Pan MM, Miles BJ, Goh AC (2016) Performance of robotic simulated skills tasks is positively associated with clinical robotic surgical performance. BJU Int 118(3):475–481PubMedCrossRef

33.

Aghazadeh MA, Jayaratna IS, Hung AJ, Pan MM, Desai MM, Gill IS et al (2015) External validation of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc 29(11):3261–3266PubMedCrossRef

34.

White LW, Kowalewski TM, Dockter RL, Comstock B, Hannaford B, Lendvay TS (2015) Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skill: a valid method for discriminating basic robotic surgery skills. J Endourol 29(11):1295–1301PubMedCrossRef

35.

Whitehurst SV, Lockrow EG, Lendvay TS, Propst AM, Dunlow SG, Rosemeyer CJ et al (2015) Comparison of two simulation systems to support robotic-assisted surgical training: a pilot study (Swine Model). J Minim Invas Gynecol 22(3):483–488CrossRef

36.

Chen C, White L, Kowalewski T, Aggarwal R, Lintott C, Comstock B et al (2014) Crowd-Sourced Assessment of Technical Skills: a novel method to evaluate surgical performance. J Surg Res 187(1):65–71PubMedCrossRef

37.

Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187(1):247–252PubMedCrossRef

38.

Hussein AA, Ghani KR, Peabody J, Sarle R, Abaza R, Eun D et al (2017) Development and validation of an objective scoring tool for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: prostatectomy assessment and competency evaluation. J Urol 197(5):1237–1244PubMedCrossRef

39.

Lovegrove C, Novara G, Mottrie A, Guru KA, Brown M, Challacombe B et al (2016) Structured and Modular Training Pathway for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP): validation of the RARP Assessment Score and Learning Curve Assessment. Eur Urol 69(3):526–535PubMedCrossRef

40.

Hussein AA, Sexton KJ, May PR, Meng MV, Hosseini A, Eun DD et al (2018) Development and validation of surgical training tool: cystectomy assessment and surgical evaluation (CASE) for robot-assisted radical cystectomy for men. Surg Endosc 32(11):4458–4464PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

41.

Gómez Ruiz M, Tou S, Gallagher AG, Cagigas Fernández C, Cristobal Poch L, Matzel KE (2022) Intraoperative robotic-assisted low anterior rectal resection performance assessment using procedure-specific binary metrics and a global rating scale. BJS Open 6(3)

42.

Mottrie A, Mazzone E, Wiklund P, Graefen M, Collins JW, De Groote R et al (2021) Objective assessment of intraoperative skills for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): results from the ERUS Scientific and Educational Working Groups Metrics Initiative. BJU Int 128(1):103–111PubMedCrossRef

43.

Tou S, Gómez Ruiz M, Gallagher AG, Matzel KE (2020) European expert consensus on a structured approach to training robotic-assisted low anterior resection using performance metrics. Colorectal Dis 22(12):2232–2242PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

44.

Raza SJ, Field E, Jay C, Eun D, Fumo M, Hu JC et al (2015) Surgical competency for urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: development and validation of the robotic anastomosis competency evaluation. Urology 85(1):27–32PubMedCrossRef

45.

Trinh L, Mingo S, Vanstrum EB, Sanford DI, Aastha MR et al (2022) Survival analysis using surgeon skill metrics and patient factors to predict urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 8(2):623–630PubMedCrossRef

46.

Khan H, Kozlowski JD, Hussein AA, Sharif M, Ahmed Y, May P et al (2019) Use of Robotic Anastomosis Competency Evaluation (RACE) tool for assessment of surgical competency during urethrovesical anastomosis. Can Urol Assoc J 13(1):E10–E16PubMed

47.

Jarc AM, Curet MJ (2017) Viewpoint matters: objective performance metrics for surgeon endoscope control during robot-assisted surgery. Surg Endosc 31(3):1192–1202PubMedCrossRef

48.

Wu C, Cha J, Sulek J, Sundaram CP, Wachs J, Proctor RW et al (2021) Sensor-based indicators of performance changes between sessions during robotic surgery training. Appl Ergon 90:103251PubMedCrossRef

49.

Lau E, Alkhamesi NA, Schlachta CM (2020) Impact of robotic assistance on mental workload and cognitive performance of surgical trainees performing a complex minimally invasive suturing task. Surg Endosc 34(6):2551–2559PubMedCrossRef

50.

Sessa L, Perrenot C, Xu S, Hubert J, Bresler L, Brunaud L et al (2018) Face and content validity of XperienceTM Team Trainer: bed-side assistant training simulator for robotic surgery. Updates Surg 70(1):113–119PubMedCrossRef

51.

Hung AJ, Rambhatla S, Sanford DI, Pachauri N, Vanstrum E, Nguyen JH et al (2022) Road to automating robotic suturing skills assessment: battling mislabeling of the ground truth. Surgery 171(4):915–919PubMedCrossRef

52.

Oğul BB, Gilgien M, Özdemir S (2022) Ranking surgical skills using an attention-enhanced Siamese network with piecewise aggregated kinematic data. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 17(6):1039–1048PubMedCrossRef

53.

Simmonds C, Brentnall M, Lenihan J (2021) Evaluation of a novel universal robotic surgery virtual reality simulation proficiency index that will allow comparisons of users across any virtual reality simulation curriculum. Surg Endosc 35(10):5867–5875PubMedCrossRef

54.

Cowan A, Chen J, Mingo S, Reddy SS, Ma R, Marshall S et al (2021) Virtual reality vs dry laboratory models: comparing automated performance metrics and cognitive workload during robotic simulation training. J Endourol 35(10):1571–1576PubMedCrossRef

55.

Ghodoussipour S, Reddy SS, Ma R, Hwang DH, Nguyen J, Hung AJ (2021) An objective assessment of performance during robotic partial nephrectomy: validation and correlation of automated performance metrics with intraoperative outcomes. J Urol 205(5):1294–1302PubMedCrossRef

56.

Chen A, Ghodoussipour S, Titus MB, Nguyen JH, Chen J, Ma R et al (2020) Comparison of clinical outcomes and automated performance metrics in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with and without trainee involvement. World J Urol 38(7):1615–1621PubMedCrossRef

57.

Brown KC, Bhattacharyya KD, Kulason S, Zia A, Jarc A (2020) How to bring surgery to the next level: interpretable skills assessment in robotic-assisted surgery. Visceral Med 36(6):463–470CrossRef

58.

Nguyen JH, Chen J, Marshall SP, Ghodoussipour S, Chen A, Gill IS et al (2020) Using objective robotic automated performance metrics and task-evoked pupillary response to distinguish surgeon expertise. World J Urol 38(7):1599–1605PubMedCrossRef

59.

Lefor AK, Harada K, Dosis A, Mitsuishi M (2020) Motion analysis of the JHU-ISI Gesture and Skill Assessment Working Set using Robotics Video and Motion Assessment Software. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 15(12):2017–2025PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

60.

Ebbing J, Wiklund PN, Akre O, Carlsson S, Olsson MJ, Höijer J et al (2021) Development and validation of non-guided bladder-neck and neurovascular-bundle dissection modules of the RobotiX-Mentor® full-procedure robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy virtual reality simulation. Int J Med Robot 17(2):e2195PubMedCrossRef

61.

Peng W, Xing Y, Liu R, Li J, Zhang Z (2019) An automatic skill evaluation framework for robotic surgery training. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 15(1):e1964CrossRef

62.

Dubin AK, Julian D, Tanaka A, Mattingly P, Smith R (2018) A model for predicting the GEARS score from virtual reality surgical simulator metrics. Surg Endosc 32(8):3576–3581PubMedCrossRef

63.

Zia A, Essa I (2018) Automated surgical skill assessment in RMIS training. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 13(5):731–739PubMedCrossRef

64.

Wang Z, Fey AM (eds) (2018) SATR-DL: improving surgical skill assessment and task recognition in robot-assisted surgery with deep neural networks 2018: IEEE

65.

Watkinson W, Raison N, Abe T, Harrison P, Khan S, Van der Poel H et al (2018) Establishing objective benchmarks in robotic virtual reality simulation at the level of a competent surgeon using the RobotiX Mentor simulator. Postgrad Med J 94(1111):270–277PubMedCrossRef

66.

Chen J, Oh PJ, Cheng N, Shah A, Montez J, Jarc A et al (2018) Use of automated performance metrics to measure surgeon performance during robotic vesicourethral anastomosis and methodical development of a training tutorial. J Urol 200(4):895–902PubMedCrossRef

67.

Hung AJ, Chen J, Che Z, Nilanon T, Jarc A, Titus M et al (2018) Utilizing machine learning and automated performance metrics to evaluate robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performance and predict outcomes. J Endourol 32(5):438–444PubMedCrossRef

68.

Fard MJ, Ameri S, Darin Ellis R, Chinnam RB, Pandya AK, Klein MD (2018) Automated robot-assisted surgical skill evaluation: predictive analytics approach. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 14(1):e1850CrossRef

69.

Lee GI, Lee MR (2018) Can a virtual reality surgical simulation training provide a self-driven and mentor-free skills learning? Investigation of the practical influence of the performance metrics from the virtual reality robotic surgery simulator on the skill learning and associated cognitive workloads. Surg Endosc 32(1):62–72PubMedCrossRef

70.

Raison N, Ahmed K, Fossati N, Buffi N, Mottrie A, Dasgupta P et al (2017) Competency based training in robotic surgery: benchmark scores for virtual reality robotic simulation. BJU Int 119(5):804–811PubMedCrossRef

71.

Vedula SS, Malpani A, Ahmidi N, Khudanpur S, Hager G, Chen CC (2016) Task-level vs. segment-level quantitative metrics for surgical skill assessment. J Surg Educ 73(3):482–489PubMedCrossRef

72.

Tanaka A, Graddy C, Simpson K, Perez M, Truong M, Smith R (2016) Robotic surgery simulation validity and usability comparative analysis. Surg Endosc 30(9):3720–3729PubMedCrossRef

73.

Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N, Jehl JP, Felblinger J, Bresler L et al (2012) The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer(®) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26(9):2587–2593PubMedCrossRef

74.

Kumar R, Jog A, Malpani A, Vagvolgyi B, Yuh D, Nguyen H et al (2012) Assessing system operation skills in robotic surgery trainees. Int J Med Robot 8(1):118–124PubMedCrossRef

75.

McDonough P, Peterson A, Brand T (2010) Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an OBJECTIVE measure of robotic task performance. J Urol 183(4 SUPPL. 1):e515

76.

Judkins TN, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2008) Objective evaluation of expert performance during human robotic surgical procedures. J Robot Surg 1(4):307–312PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

77.

Mark Knab L, Zenati MS, Khodakov A, Rice M, Al-Abbas A, Bartlett DL et al (2018) Evolution of a novel robotic training curriculum in a complex general surgical oncology fellowship. Ann Surg Oncol 25(12):3445–3452PubMedCrossRef

78.

Peng W, Xing Y, Liu R, Li J, Zhang Z (2019) An automatic skill evaluation framework for robotic surgery training. Int J Med Robot 15(1):e1964PubMedCrossRef

79.

Siddiqui NY, Galloway ML, Geller EJ, Green IC, Hur HC, Langston K et al (2014) Validity and reliability of the robotic Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills. Obstet Gynecol 123(6):1193–1199PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

80.

Frederick PJ, Szender JB, Hussein AA, Kesterson JP, Shelton JA, Anderson TL et al (2017) Surgical competency for robot-assisted hysterectomy: development and validation of a Robotic Hysterectomy Assessment Score (RHAS). J Minim Invas Gynecol 24(1):55–61CrossRef

81.

Rice MK, Hodges JC, Bellon J, Borrebach J, Al Abbas AI, Hamad A et al (2020) Association of mentorship and a formal robotic proficiency skills curriculum with subsequent generations’ learning curve and safety for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. JAMA Surg 155(7):607–615PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

82.

Altok M, Achim MF, Matin SF, Pettaway CA, Chapin BF, Davis JW (2018) A decade of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy training: time-based metrics and qualitative grading for fellows and residents. Urol Oncol 36(1):13.e9–e25

83.

Chowriappa AJ, Shi Y, Raza SJ, Ahmed K, Stegemann A, Wilding G et al (2013) Development and validation of a composite scoring system for robot-assisted surgical training—the Robotic Skills Assessment Score. J Surg Res 185(2):561–569PubMedCrossRef

84.

Møller SG, Dohrn N, Brisling SK, Larsen JCR, Klein M (2020) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted suturing performance among novice surgeons: a blinded, cross-over study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 30(2):117–122PubMedCrossRef

85.

Dilley J, Singh H, Pratt P, Omar I, Darzi A, Mayer E (2020) Visual behaviour in robotic surgery-demonstrating the validity of the simulated environment. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 16(2):e2075CrossRef

86.

Liu M, Purohit S, Mazanetz J, Allen W, Kreaden US, Curet M (2018) Assessment of Robotic Console Skills (ARCS): construct validity of a novel global rating scale for technical skills in robotically assisted surgery. Surg Endosc 32(1):526–535PubMedCrossRef

87.

Alrasheed T, Liu J, Hanasono MM, Butler CE, Selber JC (2014) Robotic microsurgery: validating an assessment tool and plotting the learning curve. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(4):794–803PubMedCrossRef

88.

Lyman WB, Passeri MJ, Murphy K, Siddiqui IA, Khan AS, Iannitti DA et al (2021) An objective approach to evaluate novice robotic surgeons using a combination of kinematics and stepwise cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses. Surg Endosc 35(6):2765–2772PubMedCrossRef

89.

Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C et al (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84(2):273–278PubMed

90.

Mazzone E, Puliatti S, Amato M, Bunting B, Rocco B, Montorsi F et al (2021) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of proficiency-based progression simulation training on performance outcomes. Ann Surg 274(2):281–289PubMedCrossRef

91.

Lam K, Chen J, Wang Z, Iqbal FM, Darzi A, Lo B et al (2022) Machine learning for technical skill assessment in surgery: a systematic review. NPJ Dig Med 5(1):24CrossRef

92.

Bruce N, Pope D, Stanistreet D (2008) Quantitative methods for health research: a practical interactive guide to epidemiology and statistics. Wiley, West SussexCrossRef

93.

https://www.rcsed.ac.uk/media/683822/rcsed-robotics-guidance-document-final.pdf

Titel: Measures of performance and proficiency in robotic assisted surgery: a systematic review
verfasst von: Charlotte El-Sayed
A. Yiu
J. Burke
P. Vaughan-Shaw
J. Todd
P. Lin
Z. Kasmani
C. Munsch
L. Rooshenas
M. Campbell
S. P. Bach
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2024
Verlag: Springer London
Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01756-y

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

TAVI versus Klappenchirurgie: Neue Vergleichsstudie sorgt für Erstaunen

21.05.2024 TAVI Nachrichten

Bei schwerer Aortenstenose und obstruktiver KHK empfehlen die Leitlinien derzeit eine chirurgische Kombi-Behandlung aus Klappenersatz plus Bypass-OP. Diese Empfehlung wird allerdings jetzt durch eine aktuelle Studie infrage gestellt – mit überraschender Deutlichkeit.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Measures of performance and proficiency in robotic assisted surgery: a systematic review

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

TAVI versus Klappenchirurgie: Neue Vergleichsstudie sorgt für Erstaunen

Update Chirurgie

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence

Retrospective multi-center study of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy: after-hours surgery and business-hours surgery outcomes

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: single-center, retrospective, propensity score analyses

Comparative analysis of radiation exposure in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty using popular robotic systems

Effectiveness of continuity of care after robot-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy under ambulatory mode: a single-center intervention study

Impact of lymph node dissection on surgical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a multicenter retrospective study

Update Chirurgie