Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(10): 1026-1033
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748901
Original Article

Orthopaedic Trainee Views on Robotic Technologies in Orthopaedics: A Survey-Based Study

Taryn E. LeRoy 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Richard Puzzitiello
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Bridgette Ho
2   Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Paul R. Van Schuyver
2   Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Joseph J. Kavolus II
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Newton Wellesley, Newton Wellesley Orthopaedic Associates, Newton, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The use of robotics is a growing area within the field of surgery, especially in orthopaedics. To date, there is no literature examining orthopaedic trainee perception of or comfort with robotics in orthopaedics. An assessment of the next generation's attitudes regarding this technology is necessary. An anonymous, national, web-based questionnaire containing 16 multiple-choice questions and 25 5-point Likert's scale questions was sent to 66 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-approved orthopaedic residency training programs. The survey was designed to discern the attitude of orthopaedic trainees toward robotics. Demographics, extent of exposure and training, and trainee perception regarding robotics were collected. A bivariate analysis using Pearson's Chi-square test or Fisher's was used to determine factors associated with trainee's future plans to use robotics. A total of 280 trainees completed the survey (response rate of 18%). Also, 67.9% have been exposed to and 42.9% trained to use robotics in surgical training. Of those trained, 44.4% were given increasing autonomy to use the technology. Further, 67.1% of trainees do not feel comfortable using robotic technology; however, 71.4% believe robotics has the potential to facilitate their education. Over 90% believe that robotic technology is here to stay. While residents have legitimate concerns about robotic implementation in orthopaedics, the majority of residents and fellows believe robotics will be a part of the future. However, few feel they receive adequate training or experience with the technology.

Keywords

robotics - orthopaedics - residency training - technology - surgical training - survey


Publication History

Received: 18 October 2021

Accepted: 18 March 2022

Article published online:
18 July 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (01) e1918911-e1918911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Jacofsky DJ, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (10) 2353-2363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chen AF, Kazarian GS, Jessop GW, Makhdom A. Robotic technology in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (22) 1984-1992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Duchene DA, Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Clayman RV, Winfield HN. Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol 2006; 176 (05) 2158-2166 , discussion 2167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gobern JM, Novak CM, Lockrow EG. Survey of robotic surgery training in obstetrics and gynecology residency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18 (06) 755-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Farivar BS, Flannagan M, Leitman IM. General surgery residents' perception of robot-assisted procedures during surgical training. J Surg Educ 2015; 72 (02) 235-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Patel YR, Donias HW, Boyd DW. et al. Are you ready to become a robo-surgeon?. Am Surg 2003; 69 (07) 599-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Smith AL, Schneider KM, Berens PD. Survey of obstetrics and gynecology residents' training and opinions on robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 2010; 4 (01) 23-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Turner SR, Mormando J, Park BJ, Huang J. Attitudes of robotic surgery educators and learners: challenges, advantages, tips and tricks of teaching and learning robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 2020; 14 (03) 455-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shay BF, Thomas R, Monga M. Urology practice patterns after residency training in laparoscopy. J Endourol 2002; 16 (04) 251-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Shaligram A, Meyer A, Simorov A, Pallati P, Oleynikov D. Survey of minimally invasive general surgery fellows training in robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 2013; 7 (02) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Brinkman WM, Schout BMA, Rietbergen JB. et al. Training robotic surgery in urology: experience and opinions of robot urologists. Int J Med Robot 2015; 11 (03) 308-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tam V, Lutfi W, Novak S. et al. Resident attitudes and compliance towards robotic surgical training. Am J Surg 2018; 215 (02) 282-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ. et al. Robotic-arm–assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S109-S115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ren Y, Cao S, Wu J, Weng X, Feng B. Efficacy and reliability of active robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J 2019; 95 (1121): 125-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Staub BN, Sadrameli SS. The use of robotics in minimally invasive spine surgery. J Spine Surg 2019; 5 (Suppl. 01) S31-S40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Galetta MS, Leider JD, Divi SN, Goyal DKC, Schroeder GD. Robotics in spinal surgery. Ann Transl Med 2019; 7 (05, Suppl 5): S165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ghasem A, Sharma A, Greif DN, Alam M, Maaieh MA. The arrival of robotics in spine surgery: a review of the literature. Spine 2018; 43 (23) 1670-1677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hyun S-J, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, Kim H-J. Minimally invasive robotic versus open fluoroscopic-guided spinal instrumented fusions: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2017; 42 (06) 353-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V. Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (06) 860-868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ponnusamy K, Chewning S, Mohr C. Robotic approaches to the posterior spine. Spine 2009; 34 (19) 2104-2109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hu X, Lieberman IH. What is the learning curve for robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine surgery?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (06) 1839-1844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schatlo B, Martinez R, Alaid A. et al. Unskilled unawareness and the learning curve in robotic spine surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015; 157 (10) 1819-1823 , discussion 1823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar