A review of minimal access surgery provision and training within the United Kingdom

When combined with healthcare pressures, the exponential growth of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has impacted UK-based training outcomes, including the learning curve to competency.

Aim: To ascertain the current provision of RAS and investigate differences in access to minimal access surgical (MAS) facilities and training across the UK.

A two-armed electronic survey was conducted.

The first arm questioned clinical leads regarding robotic practice and future training provisions.

The second investigated trainee and trainers’ perceptions of MAS training and facilities.

64% (52/81) of responding trusts utilise a robotic system.

The majority (68% [55/81]) have plans to expand or acquire a system within 3 years.

171 responses from 112 UK and Republic of Ireland hospitals were collected for Arm 2.

Laparoscopic categories queried whether trainees had access to a formal curriculum, training days and sim-boxes.

Most consultants (51.9%) and trainees (51.6%) reported that there was no formal local training curriculum for robotic surgery.

Combined responses demonstrated 42.1% ( n  = 195/463) said “yes”, 39.5% ( n  = 183) “no” and 18.4% ( n  = 85) “don’t know”.

For combined robotic categories (simulation, training days and operative lists) 28.3% ( n  = 134/473) responded “yes”, 51.6% ( n  = 244) said “no” and 20.1% ( n  = 95) said “don’t know”.

This study provides insight into the current provision of robotic-assisted surgery at UK trusts and highlights the need to facilitate regular clinical training and equitable access to MAS simulation within a formal curriculum.

This may aid regulation of training in parallel with the expansion of robotic practice and avoid a significant skill acquisition gap and risks to patient safety.