INTRODUCTION: We describe and evaluate the results of our mentor training program for laparoscopic radical Prostatectomy (LRP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2004 through December 2005, we have performed 105 (LRP). Three groups have been analysed: Group 1: The mentor as the first surgeon with the trainee acting as the assistant. Group 2: The trainee as the first surgeon with the mentor acting as the assistant. Group 3: The trainee as the first surgeon with another trainee/resident as the assistant. We have evaluated operative, postoperative data and surgical/oncological control. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in mean operative time in Groups 2 and 3 (200'-198'), but there was a difference from Group 1 (148,4') (p<0,05) we have observed a progressive operative time decrease only in Group 1. Blood loss, surgical-oncological control, pathological stage and hospital stay have been similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Skills for LRP can be effectively and safely taught by the presence of an experienced mentor. Waiting for long term results according to potency and continence, it was not associated to higher patient risk, neither to a worse surgical/oncologic outcome. We consider that this program is reproducible and allows a shorter learning curve.
INTRODUCTION: We describe and evaluate the results of our mentor training program for laparoscopic radical Prostatectomy (LRP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2004 through December 2005, we have performed 105 (LRP). Three groups have been analysed: Group 1: The mentor as the first surgeon with the trainee acting as the assistant. Group 2: The trainee as the first surgeon with the mentor acting as the assistant. Group 3: The trainee as the first surgeon with another trainee/resident as the assistant. We have evaluated operative, postoperative data and surgical/oncological control. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in mean operative time in Groups 2 and 3 (200'-198'), but there was a difference from Group 1 (148,4') (p<0,05) we have observed a progressive operative time decrease only in Group 1. Blood loss, surgical-oncological control, pathological stage and hospital stay have been similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Skills for LRP can be effectively and safely taught by the presence of an experienced mentor. Waiting for long term results according to potency and continence, it was not associated to higher patient risk, neither to a worse surgical/oncologic outcome. We consider that this program is reproducible and allows a shorter learning curve.