Resident robotic training at a single academic institution: a comparison of general surgery, gynecology, and urology

The aim of this study was to analyze the differences in robotic training among three surgical residencies: general surgery (GS), gynecology (G), and urology (U) at a single academic institution.

Current and graduated residents from GS, G, and U from 2018 to 2023 were surveyed regarding their perceptions of robotic training within each of their respective programs. Additionally, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) operative case logs from 2022 to 2024 were analyzed.

Thirty current residents (19 GS (response rate (RR) = 33.3%), 8 G (RR = 27.6%), 3 U (RR = 19.8%)) and 62 graduated residents (25 GS (RR = 78.6%), 23 G (RR = 46.4%), 14 U (RR = 72.5%)) responded to the survey. There was a significant difference in satisfaction (89.5% GS, 37.5% G, 67% U, p = 0.022 and confidence (27.8% GS, 75.0% G, 0% U, p = 0.013) in robotic training among current residents. There was no difference in satisfaction or confidence in robotic training among graduated residents. (p = 0.129 and p = 0.425, respectively). There was a significant difference in robotic bedside cases per resident among specialties (GS 2.2 cases, G 3.1 cases, U 76.7 cases per resident, p < 0.0001) as well as console cases per resident (GS 30.2 cases, G 41.7, U 195.4 cases per resident, p = 0.024).

After the completion of residency, surgeons in all three specialties value their robotic training and felt adequately prepared for robotic surgery in their respective fields. Surgical residency programs must continue to focus on case exposure and the development of robust curricula in robotic surgery to facilitate residents' success during and after training.