Surgical training in robotic surgery: surgical experience of robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal herniorrhaphy with and without resident participation

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery is becoming more popular in general surgery. Implementation of a robotic curriculum is necessary and will influence surgical training. The aim of this study is to compare surgical experience and outcomes with and without resident participation in robotic inguinal herniorrhaphy. A retrospective review of patients who underwent either unilateral or bilateral robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal herniorrhaphy, with and without resident participation as console surgeons from January through December 2015, was performed. Patient demographics, procedure-related data, postoperative variables, and follow-up data were analyzed. A total of 104 patients were included. Patients were significantly older in the Resident group (57.5 ± 14.1 vs 50.6 ± 13.5 years, p = 0.01). Gender, BMI, and ASA classification were similar between groups. There were similar mean operative times for unilateral (89.9 ± 19.5 vs 84.8 ± 22.2 min, p = 0.42) and bilateral (128.4 ± 21.9 vs 129.8 ± 50.9 min, p = 0.90) inguinal herniorrhaphy as well as mean robot console times for unilateral (73.2 ± 18.4 vs 67.3 ± 29.9 min, p = 0.44) and bilateral (115.5 ± 24.6 vs 109.3 ± 55.4 min, p = 0.67) inguinal herniorrhaphy with and without resident participation, respectively. Postoperative complications included urinary retention (11.1 vs 2.0%, p = 0.11), conversion to open repair (0 vs 2%, p = 0.48), and delayed reoperation (0 vs 4%, p = 0.22) with and without resident participation, respectively. Patients’ symptoms/signs at follow-up were similar among groups. Robotic-assisted TAPP inguinal herniorrhaphy with resident participation as console surgeons did not affect the hospital operative experience or patient outcomes. This procedure can be implemented as part of the resident robotic curriculum with rates of morbidity equivalent to those of published studies. Level of evidence 2b.