79 Is It Time to Offer Robotics Experience for Upper GI Trainees? Safe and Feasible Robotic Surgery Training by Early-in-Practice Consultants

Abstract Aim Robotic surgery is an evolving component of Upper GI Surgery, but training opportunities remain limited. This study evaluated the feasibility of providing robotic training for surgical trainees and its potential integration into the surgical curriculum. Method A single-centre evaluation at a district general hospital between April 2024 and June 2025. Trainees were trained under a single consultant surgeon who began using the robot three months prior to the study period. No trainee had prior robotic experience. An anonymous survey of Higher Surgical Trainees (HSTs) and Junior Surgical Trainees (JSTs) assessed training effectiveness using the Kirkpatrick Model. Results Three ST5-level HSTs, undertook console training for 2, 3, and 6 months respectively; three JSTs received bedside training. HSTs completed 29 robotic cases: 27 cholecystectomies and 2 partial fundoplications. There were no complications. Mean cholecystectomy time was 48 minutes, versus 47 for European consultants. Median length of stay was 0 days (cholecystectomy) and 3 days (fundoplication). One HST achieved Certificate of Console Surgeon Equivalency. All trainees reported high satisfaction, and all felt confident or very confident in their understanding of robotic controls (console for HSTs, bedside for JSTs). JSTs were more likely to apply their experience to other clinical work than HSTs. All trainees believed robotic training improved their surgical performance and recommended its integration into the General Surgery curriculum. Conclusions Robotic training for Upper GI trainees is feasible, safe, and valued. Even consultants early in their robotics journey can effectively train surgical trainees, supporting the integration of robotic surgery into the General Surgery curriculum.