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
. 2025 Aug 8;25(1):1152.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07749-9.

Training the trainees in robotic surgery - a pilot scheme in the United Kingdom

Mohammed Al-Ani  1 , Samuel Massias  1 , Panduka Jayawardena  1 , Esha Khanderia  1 , Joshua Franklyn  1 , Khawar Hashmi  1 , Vanash Patel  2   3
Affiliations

Training the trainees in robotic surgery - a pilot scheme in the United Kingdom

Mohammed Al-Ani et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Training in robotic colorectal surgery is predominantly confined to senior trainees and consultants. The lack of robotic training of the general surgical specialist trainee (ST) in the formative stages of training has led to widespread discontent among them. This paper describes a pilot scheme to establish a robotic training programme for general surgical STs in a district general hospital.

Methods: Six STs were enrolled between May 2023 and October 2023. A training programme was established using the CMR Surgical Versius robotic system, which consisted of online modules, a first assist course, performance-tracked virtual simulation, basic surgical skills assessment, and live operating. The programme was evaluated using the Royal College of Surgeons Participant Feedback Questionnaire (Likert scale 1–5).

Results: Trainees ranging from ST4 to ST8 took a median of 4.5 days (IQR 2) to complete 16 performance-tracked virtual simulation tasks. There was a significant variance in the number of attempts to pass each task (p < 0.0001), with STs finding endoscope control, suturing and knot-tying the hardest tasks to pass. There was a significant variance between the STs in the number of attempts to pass all the tasks (p = 0.02), with the ST4 trainee performing significantly better than the ST7 and ST8 trainees (p < 0.05). The STs participated in 43 operations (anterior resection = 13, abdominoperineal resection = 4, right hemicolectomy = 10, loop colostomy = 1 and cholecystectomy = 15). There were no complications related to training. Feedback on the programme was positive with a median score of 5 (IQR 0.75) for all sections of the questionnaire.

Conclusions: A structured robotic training programme to democratise robotic surgical training, especially among junior trainees who may not have prior laparoscopic surgical experience is safe and feasible. Replicating similar schemes in other hospitals may improve robotic access and training for STs.

Keywords: Medical education; Robotic assisted surgery; Specialist training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The Health Research Authority (HRA) did not require research ethics approval for this project. The service evaluation was reviewed and approved by the information governance team, and clinical lead for surgery at WHTH before its commencement. Consent for publication: Written informed consent for publication of data was obtained from all study participants. Competing interests: Mr Vanash Patel is a preceptor for CMR Surgical.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Components of the robotic training programme for trainees
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Examples of feedback data from robotic surgery using Versius
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Graph to show the average number of attempts to complete the Versius Trainer tasks
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Type of operations in which trainees participated as console surgeons
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Feng Q, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (real): Short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Th Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7(11):991–1004. 10.1016/s2468-1253(22)00248-5. - PubMed
    1. Wee IJ, Kuo L, Ngu JC. A systematic review of the true benefit of robotic surgery: Ergonomics. Int J Med Rob Comput Assist Surg. 2020;16(4). 10.1002/rcs.2113. - PubMed
    1. Ferrari D, et al. The death of laparoscopy. Surgical Endoscopy [Preprint]. 2024. 10.1007/s00464-024-10774-2.
    1. Khan JS, et al. Robotic rectal surgery has advantages over laparoscopic surgery in selected patients and centres. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(10):845–53. 10.1111/codi.14367. - PubMed
    1. Green CA, et al. The current state of surgeon credentialing in the robotic era. Annals Laparosc Endoscopic Surg. 2020;5:17–17. 10.21037/ales.2019.11.06.

LinkOut - more resources