Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model
Article first published online: 7 FEB 2012
© 2012 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 110, Issue 6, pages 870–874, September 2012
How to Cite
Hung, A. J., Ng, C. K., Patil, M. B., Zehnder, P., Huang, E., Aron, M., Gill, I. S. and Desai, M. M. (2012), Validation of a novel robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy surgical training model. BJU International, 110: 870–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10953.x
- Issue published online: 24 AUG 2012
- Article first published online: 7 FEB 2012
- Accepted for publication 28 September 2011
- educational models;
- partial nephrectomy;
- validation studies
Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?
One area of particular growth for robotic surgery has been partial nephrectomy. Despite a perceived notion that robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy is more easily adaptable compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, there is nonetheless an associated learning curve.
Validated training models with a corresponding assessment method for robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were previously unavailable. We have designed and validated a RAPN surgical model appropriate for resident and fellow training.
- • To evaluate the face, content and construct validities of a novel ex vivo surgical training model for robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
- • We prospectively identified participants as novice (not completed any robotic console cases), intermediate (at least one robotic console case but <100 cases), and expert (≥100 robotic console cases). Each participant performed a partial nephrectomy using the da Vinci Si Surgical System on an ex vivo porcine kidney with an embedded Styrofoam ball that mimics a renal tumour. Subjects completed a post-study questionnaire assessing training model realism and utility. Participants were anonymously judged by three expert reviewers using a validated laparoscopic assessment tool. Performance between groups was compared using the tukey–kramer test.
- • The 46 participants recruited for this study included 24 novices, nine intermediates, and 13 experts. Overall, expert surgeons rated the training model as ‘very realistic’ (median visual analogue score 7/10) (face validity). Experts also rated the model as an ‘extremely useful’ training tool for residents (median 9/10) and fellows (9/10) (content validity), although less so for experienced robotic surgeons (5/10). Experts outscored novices on overall performance (P= 0.0002) as well as individual metrics, including ‘depth perception,’‘bimanual dexterity,’‘efficiency,’‘tissue handling,’‘autonomy,’‘precision,’ and ‘instrument and camera awareness’ (P < 0.05) (construct validity). Experts similarly outperformed intermediates in most metrics (P < 0.05).
- • Our novel ex vivo RAPN surgical model has demonstrated face, content and construct validity. Future development of this model should include simulation of haemostasis management and renal reconstruction.