We have completed the first randomized controlled trial to objectively compare the different training modalities of robotic surgery. Our data demonstrate the significant benefits of wet lab and virtual reality robotic simulation training and highlight key differences in current training methods. This study can help guide training programs in investing resources in cost-effective, high-yield simulation exercises.

Objective Robotic cardiac surgery training has relied entirely on classical methods of surgical teaching. We sought to evaluate the impact of a virtual reality (VR) simulation curriculum to improve skill acquisition in robotic cardiac surgery. Methods We randomly assigned 20 surgical trainees to undergo a 9-exercise VR curriculum on a robotic surgical simulator or a control group that received no additional training. The trainees were then evaluated in a blinded fashion by assessing their de-identified video recordings of the following: (1) standardized robotic internal thoracic artery harvest and (2) mitral valve annuloplasty performed in porcine models, using a validated time-based scoring system and an objective intraoperative scoring tool. Postintervention assessments were compared to baseline. Results Trainees randomized to the VR group were faster than the control group for both the internal thoracic artery harvest (957.3 ± 98.9 vs. 749.1 ± 171.9; P = 0.004) and mitral annuloplasty (580.4 ± 14.4 vs. 463.8 ± 86.4; P < 0.001) and scored significantly higher with the intraoperative scoring tool (22.8 ± 2.7 vs. 11.0 ± 4.5; P < 0.001). Additionally, the VR group achieved a proficiency level similar to our experts for both time-based scores (P = 0.624 and P = 0.967), and the intraoperative assessment (P = 0.110), whereas the control group was not able to meet this level of proficiency for any of the primary outcomes. The average duration of training to successfully complete all required tasks was 9.3 hours. Conclusions We have demonstrated that a VR simulation curriculum can significantly improve the efficiency and quality of learning in robotic cardiac surgery. Further evaluation of this curriculum is required for its widespread implementation in surgical training (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT#02357056).

Background: Reoperative mitral valve (MV) surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; however, endoscopic minimally invasive surgical techniques may preserve the surgical benefits of conventional mitral operations while potentially reducing perioperative risk and length of stay (LOS) in hospital. Methods:We compared the outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent reoperative MV surgery between 2000 and 2014 using a minimally invasive endoscopic approach (MINI) with those of patients who underwent a conventional sternotomy (STERN). The primary outcome was in-hospital/30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included blood product transfusion, LOS in hospital and in the intensive care unit (ICU), and postoperative complications. Results:We included 132 patients in our study: 40 (mean age 68 ± 14 yr, 70% men) underwent MINI and 92 (62 ± 13 yr, 40% men) underwent STERN. The MINI group had significantly more comorbidities than the STERN group. While there were no significant differences in complications, all point estimates suggested lower mortality and morbidity in the MINI than the STERN group (in-hospital/ 30-day mortality 5% v. 11%, p = 0.35; composite any of 10 complications 28% v. 41%, p = 0.13). Individual complication rates were similar between the MINI and STERN groups, except for intra-aortic balloon pump requirement (IABP; 0% v. 12%, p = 0.034). MINI significantly reduced the need for any blood transfusion (68% v. 84%, p = 0.036) or packed red blood cells (63% v. 79%, p = 0.042), fresh frozen plasma (35% v. 59%, p = 0.012) and platelets (20% v. 40%, p = 0.024). It also significantly reduced median hospital LOS (8 v. 12 d, p = 0.014). An exploratory propensity score analysis similarly demonstrated a significantly reduced need for IABP (p < 0.001) and a shorter mean LOS in the ICU (p = 0.046) and in hospital (p = 0.047) in the MINI group. Conclusion:A MINI approach for reoperative MV surgery reduces blood product utilization and hospital LOS. Possible clinically relevant differences in perioperative complications require assessment in randomized clinical trials.Contexte : Les réopérations de la valve mitrale (VM) sont associées à une morbidité et à une mortalité importantes. Cependant, il semblerait que les techniques chirurgicales endoscopiques à effraction minimale préservent les avantages des opérations traditionnelles de la VM tout en réduisant potentiellement les risques périopératoires et la durée d'hospitalisation.Méthodes : Nous avons comparé les résultats de patients consécutifs ayant subi une réopération de la VM entre 2000 et 2014 selon une approche endoscopique à effraction minimale (groupe MINI) à ceux de patients ayant subi une sternotomie classique (groupe STERN). Le résultat primaire à l'étude était la mortalité intrahospitalière ou dans les 30 premiers jours, et les résultats secondaires, la transfusion de produits sanguins, la durée du séjour à l'hôpital et à l'unité des soins intensifs (USI), ainsi que les complications postopératoires.Résultats : Nous avons retenu 132 pa...