Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Stefanidis, C. Acker, B. Heniford (2008)
Proficiency-Based Laparoscopic Simulator Training Leads to Improved Operating Room Skill That Is Resistant to DecaySurgical Innovation, 15
D. Kelly, Andrew Margules, Chandan Kundavaram, Hadley Narins, L. Gomella, E. Trabulsi, C. Lallas (2012)
Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator.Urology, 79 5
C. Perrenot, Manuela Perez, N. Tran, J. Jehl, J. Felblinger, L. Bresler, J. Hubert (2012)
The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer® is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skillsSurgical Endoscopy, 26
S. Taylor (1991)
Head and neck cancer.Cancer chemotherapy and biological response modifiers, 12
A. Hung, P. Zehnder, M. Patil, Jie Cai, C. Ng, M. Aron, I. Gill, M. Desai (2011)
Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator.The Journal of urology, 186 3
A. Chaturvedi, E. Engels, W. Anderson, M. Gillison (2008)
Incidence trends for human papillomavirus-related and -unrelated oral squamous cell carcinomas in the United States.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 26 4
Kyle Finnegan, A. Meraney, I. Staff, S. Shichman (2012)
da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance.Urology, 80 2
I. Mcleod, Patrick Melder (2005)
Da Vinci Robot-Assisted Excision of a Vallecular Cyst: A Case ReportENT Journal, 84
Amy Chen (2010)
A shifting paradigm for patients with head and neck cancer: transoral robotic surgery (TORS).Oncology, 24 11
R. Kneebone, R. Aggarwal (2009)
Surgical training using simulationBMJ : British Medical Journal, 338
E. Vokes, R. Weichselbaum, S. Lippman, Waun Hong (1993)
Head and Neck CancerThe New England journal of medicine, 328 3
Y. More, T. Tsue, D. Girod, J. Harbison, Kevin Sykes, Carson Williams, Y. Shnayder (2013)
Functional swallowing outcomes following transoral robotic surgery vs primary chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced-stage oropharynx and supraglottis cancers.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 139 1
I. Balasundaram, R. Aggarwal, A. Darzi (2008)
Short‐phase training on a virtual reality simulator improves technical performance in tele‐robotic surgeryThe International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 4
T. Tausch, Timothy Kowalewski, Lee White, Patrick McDonough, T. Brand, T. Lendvay (2012)
Content and construct validation of a robotic surgery curriculum using an electromagnetic instrument tracker.The Journal of urology, 188 3
Lana Sturm, J. Windsor, P. Cosman, P. Cregan, P. Hewett, G. Maddern (2008)
A Systematic Review of Skills Transfer After Surgical Simulation TrainingAnnals of Surgery, 248
A. Hung, M. Patil, P. Zehnder, Jie Cai, C. Ng, M. Aron, I. Gill, M. Desai (2012)
Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study.The Journal of urology, 187 2
Peter Vlaovic, Eric Sargent, J. Boker, F. Corica, D. Chou, Corollos Abdelshehid, Shannon White, Leandro Sala, Frank Chu, Todd Le, R. Clayman, E. McDougall (2006)
Immediate Impact of an Intensive One-Week Laparoscopy Training Program on Laparoscopic Skills Among Postgraduate UrologistsJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 12
I. Mcleod, E. Mair, Patrick Melder (2005)
Potential Applications of the da Vinci Minimally Invasive Surgical Robotic System in OtolaryngologyENT Journal, 84
ImportanceSimulation-based standardized training is important for the clinical training of physicians practicing robotic surgery. ObjectiveTo train robotic surgery–naïve student volunteers using the da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS) for transoral robotic surgery (TORS). DesignProspective inception cohort in 2012. SettingAcademic referral center. ParticipantsSixteen medical student volunteers lacking experience in robotic surgery. InterventionsParticipants trained with the dVSS in 12 exercises until competent, defined as an overall score of at least 91%. After a 1-, 3-, 5-, or 7-week postinitial training hiatus (n = 4 per group), participants reachieved competence on follow-up. Main Outcomes and MeasuresTotal training time (TTT) to achieve competency, total follow-up time (TFT) to reachieve competency, and performance metrics. ResultsAll participants became competent. The TTT distribution was normal based on the Anderson-Darling normality test (P > .50), but our sample was divided into a short training time (STT) group (n = 10 [63%]) and long training time (LTT) group (n = 6 [37%]). The mean (SD) TTT was 2.4 (0.6) hours for the STT group and 4.7 (0.5) hours for the LTT group. All participants reachieved competence with a mean TFT that was significantly shorter than TTT. There was no significant difference between STT and LTT in mean TFT at 1 and 3 weeks (P = .79), but the LTT group had a longer TFT at 5 and 7 weeks (P = .04) but with no difference in final follow-up scores (P = .12). Conclusions and RelevancePhysicians in training can acquire robotic surgery competency. Participants who acquire skills faster regain robotic skills faster after a training hiatus, but, on retraining, all participants can regain equivalent competence. This information provides a benchmark for a simulator training program.
JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery – American Medical Association
Published: Nov 1, 2013
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.