Should Robotic Surgery Training Be Prioritized in General Surgery Residency? A Survey of Fellowship Program Director Perspectives

Sonam Kapadia; Adam Shellito; Cynthia M Tom; Junko Ozao-Choy; Eric Simms; Angela Neville; Beverley A Petrie; Christine Dauphine

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.07.025

Should Robotic Surgery Training Be Prioritized in General Surgery Residency? A Survey of Fellowship Program Director Perspectives

J Surg Educ. 2020 Nov-Dec;77(6):e245-e250. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.07.025. Epub 2020 Aug 1.

Authors

Sonam Kapadia¹, Adam Shellito¹, Cynthia M Tom¹, Junko Ozao-Choy¹, Eric Simms¹, Angela Neville¹, Beverley A Petrie¹, Christine Dauphine²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Torrance, California.
² Department of Surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Torrance, California. Electronic address: cdauphine@dhs.lacounty.gov.

PMID: 32747315
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.07.025

Abstract

Objective: Robotic surgery has been increasingly incorporated into the subspecialties of colorectal (CRS), minimally invasive/bariatric (MIS/Bar), and surgical oncology/hepatobiliary (SO/HPB) surgery, yet its impact on fellowship applicant evaluation and contribution to postresidency training remains undefined. The aim of our study was to evaluate how robotic training during General Surgery (GS) residency affects an applicant's competitiveness from the perspective of fellowship programs.

Design: A web-based survey was sent to all 235 accredited fellowship programs in CRS (n = 66), MIS/Bar (n = 122), and SO/HPB (n = 47) within the United States and Canada. Fellowship programs were queried on the import of robotic surgery training during GS residency and its impact on an applicant's match potential.

Results: Of 235 programs, 155 (66%) responded to the survey - 42 (63.6%) CRS, 87 (71.3%) MIS/Bar, and 26 (55.3%) SO/HPB. Of responding programs, 147 (94.8%) have a surgical robot at their institution, and 131 (84.5%) have fellows actively operating at the console. Overall, 107 (69%) fellowship program directors rated robotic training during surgery residency as "somewhat" or "very" important for residents seeking fellowship. While 95 (61.3%) programs said GS residents should not prioritize robotic training, 60 (38.7%) felt they should, and 38 (24.5%) were more likely to rank an applicant higher if they had some console exposure. Still, 69.7% (n = 108) of programs expect no robotic experience for incoming fellows.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that most fellowship programs have low expectations of robotic experience for incoming fellows. Still, it is notable that nearly a quarter of programs would rank an applicant more highly if they had robotic console exposure. While these findings appear reassuring to residents with limited access to robotic training, residency programs should be alerted to the growing importance of robotic exposure.

Keywords: Fellowship; Resident education; Robotic(s) surgery; Training.

MeSH terms

Canada
Clinical Competence
Education, Medical, Graduate
Fellowships and Scholarships
General Surgery* / education
Internship and Residency*
Robotic Surgical Procedures*
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States