Discussion: Infant Robotic Cleft Palate Surgery: A Feasibility Assessment Using a Realistic Cleft Palate Simulator.
J. Selber
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003021
2017-02-01
Abstract:www.PRSJournal.com 466e T authors should be congratulated on this thoughtful and organized approach to robotic surgical innovation. They effectively make the argument for transoral robotic surgery in cleft surgery and, in the process, create a model to methodically learn, teach, and study this technique. I happened to be a plastic surgery resident at Penn in 2003 when Neil Hockstein, then an ear, nose, and throat resident, first conceived of transoral robotic surgery.1 I watched as professors Weinstein and O’Malley developed these techniques and brought them into clinical practice, receiving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 2009.2,3 Witnessing this process sparked my interest in robotic surgery and led me to investigate the indications for robotics in plastic surgery.4 This simple coincidence was a seminal moment in my career. I have since gone on to develop techniques and indications for robotics across a range of adult reconstructive plastic surgery.5–9 My work in transoral robotic surgery has continued in adult cancer reconstruction, where many of the principles discussed in this article apply. However, having done my share of cleft surgery in training, I always felt that the best fit for transoral robotic surgery was not in cancer, but in pediatric cleft and velopharyngeal repair. This article and the work it represents does long overdue justice to this indication. The benefit of transoral robotic surgery is that oropharyngeal anatomy is confined in threedimensional space. The small, slender arms with wrist articulation at the instrument tips; tremor elimination; motion scaling; and high fidelity, three-dimensional visualization make the robot a very attractive platform for use in confined spaces with small surgical targets. There are few places where precision, visualization, and space restriction play a bigger role than in cleft surgery, and for this reason, robotics is a natural fit. The use of the operating microscope in cleft surgery was a half-measure in this direction, but it only addresses visualization, and arguably further compromises space constraints by getting in the way. The elegance of the robotic solution is that it addresses visualization, space constraints, and demands for precision all at once. The authors also deserve credit for surgical innovation in the pediatric population. The world is especially (appropriately) sensitive to patient safety issues in children. Children are small and fragile, and the robot is large and scary—it is no wonder cleft surgeons have been slow to proceed. The authors have gone a long way in overcoming this hurdle by developing a high-fidelity simulator. Not only is this good for teaching conventional techniques, but it allows the steep part of the learning curve to take place outside of the patient. This is a critical element in the success of the safe stewardship of surgical innovation. One important aspect of simulation is its permissive effect on the development of a novel technique. This was the missing piece in the transition of transoral robotic surgery into cleft surgery, and the authors have supplied it. In addition, this article is a step toward competency-based training in both cleft and robotic surgery. Competency-based training is the idea that learners advance based on the quality of the training, rather than the quantity of the training. This is the future of all education, including surgical education.10 A critical component of competencybased training is accurate and valid assessment tools—you cannot measure without a good ruler. Not only do the authors have a high-fidelity model, which is important for instructional learning, but they have deconstructed cleft palate surgery to a series of steps, conducted evaluations, and tested interrater reliability. In the metric-free zone of plastic surgery, we rarely focus on this type of structured learning and assessment; however,