Challenges of Integrating Robotic Surgical Procedures into Graduate Medical Education: State of The Art Review.

Rosa Johanna Luque Loor; Jaira Hailyn Villegas Villavicencio; Jonathan David Cherres Bermeo; Hianny Elian Muentes Delgado; José André Cedeño Orejuela; Ariel Melis Sosa; Paola Ceciliana Añazco Moreira; Gema Paola Zambrano Zambrano; Andy Hermógenes Luque Loor

doi:10.6018/edumed.692231

Authors

Rosa Johanna Luque Loor Doctor en Medicina y Cirugía – Especialista en Medicina del Trabajo, Portoviejo, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5063-6950
Jaira Hailyn Villegas Villavicencio Médica Cirujana – Magíster en Docencia en Ciencias de la Salud, Portoviejo, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6273-0314
Jonathan David Cherres Bermeo Médico, Manabí, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8043-1084
Hianny Elian Muentes Delgado Médico, Manabí, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8048-7273
José André Cedeño Orejuela Docente de la Carrera de Medicina, Universidad San Gregorio de Portoviejo, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4754-0643
Ariel Melis Sosa Docente de la Carrera de Medicina, Universidad San Gregorio de Portoviejo, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0671-2723
Paola Ceciliana Añazco Moreira Docente de la Carrera de Medicina, Universidad San Gregorio de Portoviejo, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7499-6141
Gema Paola Zambrano Zambrano Nutricionista Dietista – Cosmiatra, Magíster en Docencia en Ciencias de la Salud, Portoviejo, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8724-4494
Andy Hermógenes Luque Loor Docente de la Carrera de Medicina, Universidad San Gregorio de Portoviejo, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0381-3838

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/edumed.692231

Keywords: Robotic Surgical Procedures, Robot Assisted Surgery, Robot Enhanced Procedures, Graduate Medical Education

Abstract

Introduction. Robotic surgery is progressively transforming postgraduate medical education (PME); however, its integration into training programs remains heterogeneous, with persistent shortcomings in access, curriculum standardization, resident autonomy, and competency assessment. Objective. To synthesize and map the main challenges associated with integrating robotic surgical procedures into PME across seven domains: access, curriculum, institutional support, resident experience, assessment, barriers, and outcomes. The guiding question was: What are the challenges of integrating robotic surgical procedures into postgraduate medical education? Methods. A narrative thematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed studies published in 2025, in English, and indexed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluated the integration of robotic procedures into residency or fellowship programs and addressed at least one of the predefined domains were included. Studies unrelated to GME, technical reports without training outcomes, opinion pieces, preprints, duplicates, and non-robotic training programs were excluded. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a standardized framework, and no meta-analysis was performed. Results: The programs reported unequal access to robotic platforms, dual-console systems, simulators, and protected training time, resulting in fragmented, competency-based curricula with poorly defined milestones and inconsistent institutional support. Although residents showed high motivation, hands-on experience was variable, and autonomy at the console was limited. Available assessment tools showed potential but lacked robust validation and formal alignment with accreditation standards. Implementation was further constrained by high costs, a shortage of trained instructors, medico-legal concerns, workflow limitations, and structural inequalities. The results showed improvements in simulation metrics and processes, while the transfer to independent surgical competence and improved clinical outcomes was inconsistent. Conclusions. The integration of robotic surgery into advanced medical training remains limited by inequities in access and an inconsistent curricular and institutional infrastructure. Its advancement will require standardized, competency-based training pathways, equitable access to technology, and sustained investment in faculty development, simulation, mentorship, and validated assessment systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Views/Downloads

Abstract
123
pdf
96
Material suplementario (E...
7

References

1. Khan S, Jevnikar B, Emara A, Delaney P, Elmenawi K, Surace P, et al. Impact of robotic total hip and knee arthroplasty on resident and fellow training in orthopedic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2025, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02642-5

2. Muaddi H, Dare A, Walker R, Laplante S, Roke R, Karanicolas P. Bridging the gap: assessing the integration of robotic-assisted surgery into canadian surgical training programs. Can J Surg. 2024, 67(3), E250-E251. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.013123

3. Alicuben E, Wightman S, Shemanski K, David E, Atay S, Kim A. Training residents in robotic thoracic surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2021, 13(10), 6169-6178. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-2019-rts-06

4. Clark C, Turner J, Kpodzo D, Reid K, Hobson L, Moore C, et al. Adopting robotics training into a general surgery residency curriculum: where are we now?. Curr Surg Rep. 2019, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-019-0225-1

5. Smyth R, Francis N, Vasudevan S. The evolution of training in robotic colorectal surgery. J Robot Surg. 2025, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02670-1

6. Liss M, McDougall E. Robotic surgical simulation. Cancer J. 2013, 19(2), 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1097/ppo.0b013e3182885d79

7. Buele J, Terán-Albuja J, Gutiérrez-Martínez A. Applications and challenges of artificial intelligence in oncologic surgical education. Int J Online Biomed Eng. 2025, 21(10), 128-136. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v21i10.55925

8. Pal H. Advancements and limitations in integrating robotics into medicine: a comprehensive review. Multidiscip Rev. 2024, 7(11), 2024248. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2024248

9. Rail B, Abreu A, Farah E, Scott D, Sankaranarayanan G, Zeh H, et al. Learning curve of a robotic bio-tissue intestinal anastomosis: implications for surgical training curricula. J Surg Educ. 2024, 81(12), 103296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.09.015

10. Liu Y, Zhao X, Xu C, Yu D, Liu X. Robotic surgery: the convergence of digital innovations in head and neck surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2025, 53(11), 2005-2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2025.08.018

11. Wah J. Revolutionizing surgery: ai and robotics for precision, risk reduction, and innovation. J Robot Surg. 2025, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02205-0

12. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB; PRISMA-SGroup. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches inSystematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

13. Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz, Ahmed Elmagarmid. Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016, 5, 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

14. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022, 18(2), e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230

15. Abe N, Abe T, Hori K, Abe J, Okada K, Takahashi K, Harada S, Kon M, Furumido J, Hashimoto K, Murai S, Kikuchi H, Masumori N, Kakizaki H, Shinohara N. Current Landscape of Urological Surgical Training: A Needs Assessment Survey in Japan. Int. J. Urol. 2025, 32(7), 811-820. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.70055

16. Aksoy ME, Izzetoglu K, Utkan NZ, Agrali A, Yoner SI, Bishop A, Shewokis PA. Comparing Behavioral and Neural Activity Changes During Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery Trainings. J Surg Educ. 2025, 82(5), 103486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103486

17. Evans C, Shakir T, El-Sayed C, Harji DP, Miskovic D, Shaikh I, Khan J, Kinross J, Davies RJ; Dukes' Club and The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) Robotic Clinical Advisory Group. ACPGBI position statement on robotic-assisted colorectal surgical training. Colorectal Dis. 2025, 27(7), e70161. https://doi.org10.1111/codi.70161

18. Fadel MG, Walshaw J, Pecchini F, al. A pan-European survey of robotic training for gastrointestinal surgery: European Robotic Surgery Consensus (ERSC) initiative. Surg Endosc. 2025, 39, 907–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11373-x

19. Harris M, Bannon A, Collins JW. Procedural robotic surgery training: a UK pan-specialty trainee Delphi consensus study. J Robotic Surg. 2025, 19, 501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02582-0

20. Iftekhar N, Cataldo K, Seo SJ, Allen B, Giles C, Kelecy MW, MacDavid J, Baynosa RC. Robotic Rectus Abdominis Myoperitoneal Flap for Posterior Vaginal Wall Reconstruction: Experience at a Single Institution. J Clin Med. 2025, 14(1), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14010292

21. Kim SS, Schumacher L, Cooke DT, Servais E, Rice D, Sarkaria I, Yang S, Abbas A, Sanchetti M, Long J, Kotova S, Park BJ, D'Souza D, Shah-Jadeja M, Ajouz H, Godoy L, Bahatyrevich N, Hayanga J, Lazar J. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Expert Consensus Statements on a Framework for a Standardized National Robotic Curriculum for Thoracic Surgery Trainees. Ann Thorac Surg. 2025, 119(4), 719-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.12.003

22. Laverty RB, Chesnut CH, Karam JR, et al. Evaluating the evaluators: does C-SATS measure up?. Surg Endosc. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-12150-0

23. Neuzil K, Wallen E, Potts JR 3rd, DeWitt-Foy ME. See more, do less?-resident-reported training trends in reconstructive urology. Transl Androl Urol. 2025, 14(8), 2358-2364. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-2025-55

24. Reddington H, Bogursky A, Ballinger Z, Widdowson K, Guart J, Walter D, et al. Robotic surgery training during general surgery residency: a national survey study. J Surg Educ. 2025, 82(11), 103702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103702

25. Broholm M, Rosenberg J. Surgical residents are excluded from robot-assisted surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015, 25(5), 449-450. https://doi.org/10.1097/sle.0000000000000190

26. Green C, Mahuron K, Harris H, O’Sullivan P. Integrating robotic technology into resident training: challenges and recommendations from the front lines. Acad Med. 2019, 94(10), 1532-1538. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002751

27. Bouvette M, Lee B, Bradley N. Robotic simulation in urology training: implementation, curricula, and barriers across u.s. residency programs. J Robot Surg. 2025, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02591-z

28. Thomaschewski M, Kist M, Zimmermann M, Benecke C, Kalff J, Krüger C, et al. Conception and prospective multicentric validation of a robotic surgery training curriculum (rostrac) for surgical residents: from simulation via laboratory training to integration into the operation room. J Robot Surg. 2024, 18(53). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01813-6

29. Hague C, Merrill S. Integration of robotics in urology residency programs: an unchecked technological revolution. Curr Urol Rep. 2021, 22(9). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01062-w

30. Makope A, Higgins R. General surgery resident robotic training curriculum: evaluation six years after implementation. Surg Endosc. 2024, 39(2), 932-941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11441-2

31. Moit H, Dwyer A, Sutter M, Heinzel S, Crawford D. A standardized robotic training curriculum in a general surgery program. JSLS. 2019, 23(4), e2019.00045. https://doi.org/10.4293/jsls.2019.00045

32. Smith R, Patel V, Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2013, 10(3), 379-384. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1559

33. Porterfield J, Podolsky D, Ballecer C, Coker A, Kudsi O, Duffy A, et al. Structured resident training in robotic surgery: recommendations of the robotic surgery education working group. J Surg Educ. 2024, 81(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2023.09.006

34. Shellito A, Kapadia S, Kaji A, Tom C, Dauphine C, Petrie B. Current status of robotic surgery in colorectal residency training programs. Surg Endosc. 2021, 36(1), 307-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08276-y

35. Martin J, Stefanidis D, Dorin R, Goh A, Satava R, Levy J. Demonstrating the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (frs) curriculum on the robotix mentor virtual reality simulation platform. J Robot Surg. 2020, 15(2), 187-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01085-4

36. Stewart C, Green C, Meara M, Awad M, Nelson M, Coker A, et al. Common components of general surgery robotic educational programs. J Surg Educ. 2023, 80(11), 1717-1722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2023.07.013

37. Jogerst K, Coe T, Petrusa E, Neil J, Davila V, Pearson D, et al. Multidisciplinary perceptions on robotic surgical training: the robot is a stimulus for surgical education change. Surg Endosc. 2022, 37(4), 2688-2697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09708-7

38. Wang T, Woelfel I, Huang E, Pieper H, Meara M, Chen X. Behind the pattern: general surgery resident autonomy in robotic surgery. Heliyon. 2024, 10(11), e31691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31691

39. Shaw R, Eid M, Bleicher J, Broecker J, Caesar B, Chin R, et al. Current barriers in robotic surgery training for general surgery residents. J Surg Educ. 2022, 79(3), 606-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.11.005

40. Zhao B, Lam J, Hollandsworth H, Lee A, Lopez N, Abbadessa B, et al. General surgery training in the era of robotic surgery: a qualitative analysis of perceptions from resident and attending surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2019, 34(4), 1712-1721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06954-0

41. Zwakman M, Trippenzee M, Lange J, Pierie J, Consten E. Exploring needs, prevalence and experience with robotic-assisted surgery training among residents: a mixed method study. J Robot Surg. 2025, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02527-7

42. Tesfai F, Nagi J, Morrison I, Boal M, Olaitan A, Chandrasekaran D, et al. Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic‐assisted gynecological surgery: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024, 103(8), 1480-1497. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14840

43. Boal M, Anastasiou D, Tesfai F, Ghamrawi W, Mazomenos E, Curtis N, et al. Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review. Br J Surg. 2023, 111(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad331

44. Arcamo K, Murugappan S, Larkins K, Mohan H, Costello A, Pendlebury A, et al. Determining the metrics of competence in robotic hysterectomy: a systematic review. J Robot Surg. 2025, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02471-6

45. Walshaw J, Fadel M, Boal M, Yiasemidou M, Elhadi M, Pecchini F, et al. Essential components and validation of multi-specialty robotic surgical training curricula: a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2025, 111(4), 2791-2809. https://doi.org/10.1097/js9.0000000000002284

46. Berg R, Vertosick E, Sjoberg D, Eugene K, Coleman J, Donahue T, et al. Implementation and validation of an automated, longitudinal robotic surgical evaluation and feedback program at a high-volume center and impact on training. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024, 62, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.02.014

47. Łajczak P, Janiec J, Żerdziński K, Jóźwik K, Nowakowski P, Nawrat Z. M.d. meets machine: the symbiotic future of surgical learning. Eur Surg. 2024, 56, 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-024-00840-3

48. Mottrie A, Sarchi L, Puliatti S, Gallagher A. Standardization of training. Practical Simulation in Urology. 2022, 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88789-6_24

49. Vanlander A, Mazzone E, Collins J, Mottrie A, Rogiers X, Poel H, et al. Orsi consensus meeting on european robotic training (ocert): results from the first multispecialty consensus meeting on training in robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol. 2020, 78(5), 713-716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.02.003

50. Olawade D, Marinze S, Weerasinghe K, Egbon E, Onuoha J, Teke J. Robotic surgery in healthcare: current challenges, technological advances, and global implementation prospects. J Robot Surg. 2025, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02702-w

51. Bianchi P, Formisano G. Institutional economics in robotic colorectal surgery. Robotic Surgery. 2021, 1389-1394. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53594-0_130

52. Perry B, Howard K, Novotny N, Iacco A, Ivascu F, Nguyen N. Identifying barriers to resident robotic console time in a general surgery residency through a targeted needs assessment. J Robot Surg. 2023, 17(6), 2783-2789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01711-x

53. Zhao B, Hollandsworth H, Lee A, Lam J, Lopez N, Abbadessa B, et al. Making the jump: a qualitative analysis on the transition from bedside assistant to console surgeon in robotic surgery training. J Surg Educ. 2020, 77(2), 461-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.09.015

54. Barriga M, Rojas A, Roggin K, Talamonti M, Hogg M. Development of a two-week dedicated robotic surgery curriculum for general surgery residents. J Surg Educ. 2022, 79(4), 861-866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.02.015

55. Raad W, Ayub A, Huang C, Guntman L, Rehmani S, Bhora F. Robotic thoracic surgery training for residency programs. Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery. 2018, 13(6), 417-422. https://doi.org/10.1097/imi.0000000000000573

56. Imai T, Amersi F, Tillou A, Chau V, Soukiasian H, Lin M. A multi-institutional needs assessment in the development of a robotic surgery curriculum: perceptions from resident and faculty surgeons. J Surg Educ. 2023, 80(1), 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.08.002