Training robotic surgery in urology: experience and opinions of robot urologists

W. M. Brinkman*, B. M. A. Schout, J. B. Rietbergen, A. H. de Vries, H. G. van der Poel, E. L. Koldewijn, J. A. Witjes, J. J. G. van Merrienboer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

61 Downloads (Pure)


Background To answer the research questions: (a) what were the training pathways followed by the first generation of robot urologists; and (b) what are their opinions on the ideal training for the future generation? MethodsData were gathered with a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews in a mixed-method research design. ResultsThe results show that training approaches differed from hardly any formal training to complete self-initiated training programmes, with all available learning resources. The median number of supervised procedures at the start of robot-assisted laparoscopy was five (range 0-100). Before patient-related console time, respondents indicated that the minimum training of robot trainees should consist of: live observations (94% indicated this as essential), video observations (90%), knowledge (88%), table assisting (87%) and basic skills (70%). ConclusionThe first generation of robot urologists used different training approaches to start robotic surgery. There is a need for a structured and compulsory training programme for robotic surgery.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)308-318
JournalInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2015


  • robot training
  • expert opinion
  • interview


Dive into the research topics of 'Training robotic surgery in urology: experience and opinions of robot urologists'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this