You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Surgical Education & Skills Assessment III1 Apr 2015PD19-08 PROFICIENCY-BASED ROBOTIC TRAINING CURRICULUM YIELDS IMPROVEMENTS IN ROBOTIC CLINICAL PERFORMANCE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY Monty Aghazadeh, Miguel Mercado, Michael Pan, Neel Srikishen, Brian Miles, Richard Link, Brian Dunkin, and Alvin Goh Monty AghazadehMonty Aghazadeh More articles by this author , Miguel MercadoMiguel Mercado More articles by this author , Michael PanMichael Pan More articles by this author , Neel SrikishenNeel Srikishen More articles by this author , Brian MilesBrian Miles More articles by this author , Richard LinkRichard Link More articles by this author , Brian DunkinBrian Dunkin More articles by this author , and Alvin GohAlvin Goh More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.707AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The lack of data regarding the impact of training on robotic clinical performance has precluded the adoption of a standardized robotic training curriculum. Our group has previously established and validated task-specific proficiency levels for 5 inanimate skills (IS) and 8 da Vinci Skills Simulator Virtual Reality (VR) exercises. Herein, we evaluate the impact of a standardized proficiency-based training curriculum employing these specific IS and VR tasks on clinical performance. METHODS Twenty urology residents from post-graduate years (PGY) 2-6 were enrolled in the curriculum extending between March 2013 and June 2014. All participants underwent a baseline skills assessment consisting of simulation performance as well as performing the endopelvic dissection of robotic prostatectomy (scored by the Global Evaluative Assessment Robotics Skills [GEARS] assessment tool). Residents were then randomized within their PGY and assigned to either: 1) Training Group (TG), train until proficient on 2 consecutive repetitions for each task, or 2) Standard Access Group (SAG), access to training tools, but no defined curriculum. Skills assessment was repeated at the midpoint and at the end of the curriculum for all participants. Median performance scores were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test and changes over time within groups were evaluated using the Paired-Sample Wilcoxon test. RESULTS Seventeen residents completed the required skills assessments, 9 of whom were in the TG. At baseline, no significant differences were noted between TG and SAG on all portions of skills assessments. By the end of the study, both groups saw improvements in performance, but in comparing final scores, the TG significantly outperformed SAG on IS and VR. Clinical performance was also higher in TG, although this was not statistically significant. However, when comparing baseline and final GEARS scores within groups, the improvement over time was significantly different in the TG (p=0.015), but not in the SAG (p=0.091). CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of simulation training on robotic clinical performance over time. We show that a structured proficiency-based robotic curriculum can yield improvements in robotic clinical performance. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e394-e395 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Monty Aghazadeh More articles by this author Miguel Mercado More articles by this author Michael Pan More articles by this author Neel Srikishen More articles by this author Brian Miles More articles by this author Richard Link More articles by this author Brian Dunkin More articles by this author Alvin Goh More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...
Read full abstract