A. N. Makope1, R. M. Higgins1 1Medical College Of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
Introduction: There has been a surge of robotic general surgery over the last decade which emphasizes the importance of a structured robotic surgery curriculum in residency programs. In this study, we sought to analyze our program’s robotic curriculum and its impact on current and graduated residents. We hypothesized that the implementation of a robotic surgery resident training curriculum would have an overall positive impact on general surgery residency experience during and post-graduation.
Methods: Our program’s robotic surgery resident training curriculum was implemented in 2017. Current post-graduate year (PGY) 1 through 5 residents were voluntarily surveyed regarding their robotic curriculum experience. Graduated residents from the class of 2018-2022 were surveyed regarding their experiences with robotic surgery during residency and post-graduation. Additionally, de-identified ACGME resident operative case logs from 2017-2023 were analyzed to determine robotic case volume. Case logs were compared between two different time periods of the robotic curriculum: early adoption in the first 3 years of the curriculum (July 2017 – June 2020) and late adoption in the last 1.5 years of the curriculum (January 2022 – June 2023).
Results: Among current residents (n=44), 19 (43%) responded to a survey regarding their robotic curriculum experience. Overall, 17 (89%) were satisfied with the curriculum, and 16 (84%) were likely to use robotics in their future practice. Of the graduated residents (n=33), 25 (75%) responded to the survey, of which 24 (96%) felt the curriculum prepared them for robotics in their practice, and 17 (72%) started using robotics within a year of graduation. Regarding ACGME case logs, a total of 1,091 robotic cases were performed by residents in the late adoption time period, compared to 352 cases in early adoption. The overall case averages by PGY-level significantly increased 3.1 times from early adoption (mean 70.4 cases per PGY level) to late adoption (mean 218.2 cases per PGY level), (p = 0.024). Additionally, residents participated in a greater average number of console cases over time (42.4 cases in the early adoption vs. 138 cases in the late adoption, p = 0.049).
Conclusion: Overall, a structured robotic surgery curriculum has had a positive impact on resident training. Current and graduated residents are satisfied with the curriculum and can utilize their skills shortly after graduation. There has also been significant growth in the operative case volume, with residents participating in more cases at the console. This study suggests that implementation of a resident robotic training curriculum has value during residency and in clinical practice.
