Literature DB >> 19091351

Long-term impact of a robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mini fellowship training program on postgraduate urological practice patterns.

Aldrin Joseph R Gamboa1, Rosanne T Santos, Eric R Sargent, Michael K Louie, Geoffrey N Box, Kevin H Sohn, Hung Truong, Rachelle Lin, Amanda Khosravi, Ricardo Santos, David K Ornstein, Thomas E Ahlering, Darren R Tyson, Ralph V Clayman, Elspeth M McDougall.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy has stimulated a great deal of interest among urologists. We evaluated whether a mini fellowship for robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy would enable postgraduate urologists to incorporate this new procedure into clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2003 to July 2006, 47 urologists participated in the robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mini fellowship program. The 5-day course had a 1:2 faculty-to-attendee ratio. The curriculum included lectures, tutorials, surgical case observation, and inanimate, animate and cadaveric robotic skill training. Questionnaires assessing practice patterns 1, 2 and 3 years after the mini fellowship program were analyzed.
RESULTS: One, 2 and 3 years after the program the response rate to the questionnaires was 89% (42 of 47 participants), 91% (32 of 35) and 88% (21 of 24), respectively. The percent of participants performing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in years 1 to 3 after the mini fellowship was 78% (33 of 42), 78% (25 of 32) and 86% (18 of 21), respectively. Among the surgeons performing the procedure there was a progressive increase in the number of cases each year with increasing time since the mini fellowship training. In the 3 attendees not performing the procedure 3 years after the mini fellowship training the reasons were lack of a robot, other partners performing it and a feeling of insufficient training to incorporate the procedure into clinical practice in 1 each. One, 2 and 3 years following the mini fellowship training program 83%, 84% and 90% of partnered attendees were performing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, while only 67%, 56% and 78% of solo attendees, respectively, were performing it at the same followup years.
CONCLUSIONS: An intensive, dedicated 5-day educational course focused on learning robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy enabled most participants to successfully incorporate and maintain this procedure in clinical practice in the short term and long term.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19091351     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  17 in total

Review 1.  Training and outcome monitoring in robotic urologic surgery.

Authors:  Daniel Liberman; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Claudio Jeldres; Luc Valiquette; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching.

Authors:  Ahmed Magheli; Mark L Gonzalgo; Li-Ming Su; Thomas J Guzzo; George Netto; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  No-cable and smartphone/tablet: A functional laparoscopic training box "Fu-Lap T-Box".

Authors:  Fatih Uruç; Serkan Akan; Bekir Aras; Elif Uruç; Ayhan Verit
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-09-01

4.  Impact of robotic general surgery course on participants' surgical practice.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Francesco Volonté; Monika E Hagen; Philippe Morel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Learning tools and simulation in robotic surgery: state of the art.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Francesco Volonté; Philippe Morel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Robotic surgery basic skills training: Evaluation of a pilot multidisciplinary simulation-based curriculum.

Authors:  Kirsten Foell; Antonio Finelli; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Marcus Q Bernardini; Thomas K Waddell; Kenneth T Pace; R John D 'a Honey; Jason Y Lee
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 7.  Proctorship and mentoring: Its backbone and application in robotic surgery.

Authors:  Glen Denmer Santok; Ali Abdel Raheem; Lawrence Hc Kim; Kidon Chang; Byung Ha Chung; Young Deuk Choi; Koon Ho Rha
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2016-11-28

8.  Robotics in otolaryngology and head and neck surgery: Recommendations for training and credentialing: A report of the 2015 AHNS education committee, AAO-HNS robotic task force and AAO-HNS sleep disorders committee.

Authors:  Neil D Gross; F Christopher Holsinger; J Scott Magnuson; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Eric M Genden; Tamer Ah Ghanem; Kathleen L Yaremchuk; David Goldenberg; Matthew C Miller; Eric J Moore; Luc Gt Morris; James Netterville; Gregory S Weinstein; Jeremy Richmon
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 3.147

9.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using modular training programme in a private hospital.

Authors:  Handoo Rhee; Jason Paterdis; Peter Heathcote
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-02-13

10.  Robotic surgical education: a collaborative approach to training postgraduate urologists and endourology fellows.

Authors:  Hossein Mirheydar; Marklyn Jones; Kenneth S Koeneman; Robert M Sweet
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2009 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.