Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 5;7(1):26.
doi: 10.1186/s41077-022-00223-2.

The transferability of laparoscopic and open surgical skills to robotic surgery

Maria Ordell Sundelin  1   2 , Charlotte Paltved  3 , Pernille Skjold Kingo  4   5 , Henrik Kjölhede  6   7 , Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen  4   5
Affiliations

The transferability of laparoscopic and open surgical skills to robotic surgery

Maria Ordell Sundelin et al. Adv Simul (Lond). .

Abstract

Background: Within the last decades, robotic surgery has gained popularity. Most robotic surgeons have changed their main surgical activity from open or laparoscopic without prior formal robotic training. With the current practice, it is of great interest to know whether there is a transfer of surgical skills. In visualization, motion scaling, and freedom of motion, robotic surgery resembles open surgery far more than laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, our hypothesis is that open-trained surgeons have more transfer of surgical skills to robotic surgery, compared to surgeons trained in laparoscopy.

Methods: Thirty-six surgically inexperienced medical students were randomized into three groups for intensive simulation training in an assigned modality: open surgery, laparoscopy, or robot-assisted laparoscopy. The training period was, for all study subjects, followed by performing a robot-assisted bowel anastomosis in a pig model. As surrogate markers of surgical quality, the anastomoses were tested for resistance to pressure, and video recordings of the procedure were evaluated by two blinded expert robotic surgeons, using a global rating scale of robotic operative performance (Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS)).

Results: The mean leak pressure of bowel anastomosis was 36.25 (7.62-64.89) mmHg in the laparoscopic training group and 69.01 (28.02-109.99) mmHg in the open surgery group, and the mean leak pressure for the robotic training group was 108.45 (74.96-141.94) mmHg. The same pattern was found with GEARS as surrogate markers of surgical quality. GEARS score was 15.71 (12.37-19.04) in the laparoscopic training group, 18.14 (14.70-21.58) in the open surgery group, and 22.04 (19.29-24.79) in the robotic training group. In comparison with the laparoscopic training group, the robotic training group had a statistically higher leak pressure (p = 0.0015) and GEARS score (p = 0.0023). No significant difference, for neither leak pressure nor GEARS, between the open and the robotic training group.

Conclusion: In our study, training in open surgery was superior to training in laparoscopy when transitioning to robotic surgery in a simulation setting performed by surgically naive study subjects.

Keywords: Assessment; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Open surgery; Robotics; Simulation training; Skill transfer; Surgical training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Final study test: leak pressure test on pig model robotic anastomosis. (1) Laparoscopy n = 12, (2) open surgery n = 10, and (3) robotic surgery n = 12. *Significant difference
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Final study test: GEARS score at test on pig model robotic anastomosis. (1) Laparoscopy n = 12, (2) open surgery n = 11, and (3) robotic surgery n = 12. *Significant difference
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kowalewski KF, Schmidt MW, Proctor T, Pohl M, Wennberg E, Karadza E, et al. Skills in minimally invasive and open surgery show limited transferability to robotic surgery: results from a prospective study. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(4):1656–1667. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6109-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stolzenburg JU, Qazi HA, Holze S, Mende M, Nicolaus M, Franz T, et al. Evaluating the learning curve of experienced laparoscopic surgeons in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2013;27(1):80–5. - PubMed
    1. Tobias-Machado M, Mitre AI, Rubinstein M, Costa EF, Hidaka AK. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy learning curve for experienced laparoscopic surgeons: does it really exist? Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(1):83–89. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0485. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, Ospina JC, Mazzoleni F, Errico G, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;104(7):991–995. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08532.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kim I.K. KJ, Park Y.A., et. al. Is prior laparoscopy experience required for adaptation to robotic rectal surgery?: feasibility of one-step transition from open to robotic surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 2014:693-699. - PubMed