# Randomised trial on the economic impact of proficiency‐based progression vs conventional robotic surgical training

## TL;DR

This study compares the costs of two robotic surgery training methods and finds that one becomes more cost-effective with more trainees.

## Contribution

The study identifies scalability thresholds where proficiency-based training becomes more cost-effective than conventional methods.

## Key findings

- PBP training was more expensive for small groups but became cost-effective beyond 25 trainees.
- At 500 trainees, PBP training cost 110% less than conventional training.
- All cost differences were statistically significant.

## Abstract

To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of proficiency‐based progression (PBP) training compared to conventional surgical training approaches, and to determine whether PBP training implementation is economically justified when scaled to large numbers of trainees.

Economic analysis was performed using data from the prospective, randomised, and blinded Orsi Surgical Skills E‐learning Trial (OSSET; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04541615) at ORSI Academy (Belgium), where 47 medical trainees without prior robotic surgery experience were randomised into four groups, each with progressively reduced adherence to the PBP methodology. All trainees completed simulation‐based training on a validated bladder‐urethra anastomosis model, ranging from full PBP training with metric‐based assessment and proficiency benchmarks (Group 1) to a traditional apprenticeship model (Group 4). The primary outcome was training cost, evaluated per trainee and based on programme scalability (12–500 trainees), including expenses for accommodation, laboratory time, and metric development. Cost equivalence points and scalability thresholds were identified to compare the financial impact of the four training strategies.

The PBP training was more expensive than conventional methods for small cohorts (e.g. €14 139 vs €7067 per trainee for 12 trainees), but became significantly more cost‐effective beyond 25 trainees (equivalence point). At 500 trainees, total PBP training cost was €1.69 million compared to €3.53 million for conventional training, a 110% cost advantage. All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001).

We conclude that PBP training is significantly more effective and becomes increasingly cost‐efficient as the number of trainees increases. These findings support its integration into high‐volume national training programmes, offering a scalable and economically sustainable alternative to apprenticeship‐based surgical education.