Literature DB >> 19874300

Initial experience of teaching robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to surgeons-in-training: can training be evaluated and standardized?

John W Davis1, Ashish Kamat, Mark Munsell, Curtis Pettaway, Louis Pisters, Surena Matin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure the time and subjective quality of individual steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), as RARP performed by trainees has recently become the most common technique of RP in the USA, and although outcomes from expert surgeons are reported, limited data are available to document training experiences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients studied were from a prospective cohort of 178 participants (124 with training data). Transperitoneal RARP was performed by one faculty surgeon and one assistant from a rotation of four urological oncology fellows and three residents. RARP was divided into 11 steps, and staff times were recorded for each step. Trainee times and quality scores were recorded for each step, the later defined as grade A equal to staff (A+, no verbal coaching); B, minor corrections; and C, major corrections. Short-term outcomes were recorded to assess the safety of the training.
RESULTS: The mean (range) console time/case of trainees was 40 (10-123) min. The median console time for a complete case by faculty and by trainees (pooled group) was 128 and 231 min, respectively, an increase in 81%. Individual trainee-performed steps increased in time (compared to staff) by a median range of 50-177%, and the incidence of quality grades < A of 9-100%. Trainee quality grades for basic tissue-dissection steps were higher than for advanced tissue dissection and suturing. There was no downgrading for a major correction. Analysis of short-term outcomes suggested acceptable results in a training environment. The study is limited by no available validated training measurement tools, and a low frequency of beginner trainees advancing to more difficult steps during the rotation.
CONCLUSIONS: During the initial exposure of trainees to RARP of <40 cases, we measured time and subjective quality grading of basic steps, and introduction to advanced steps. Training requires more procedure time, but does not appear to diminish expected outcomes.
© 2009 THE AUTHORS. JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2009 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19874300     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08997.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  12 in total

1.  Factors predicting prolonged operative time for individual surgical steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): A single surgeon's experience.

Authors:  Abdullah M Alenizi; Roger Valdivieso; Emad Rajih; Malek Meskawi; Cristian Toarta; Marc Bienz; Mounsif Azizi; Pierre Alain Hueber; Hugo Lavigueur-Blouin; Vincent Trudeau; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Developing technical expertise in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in a moderate-volume center through a proctor-based team approach.

Authors:  Shieh Ling Bang; Keng Siang Png; Yu Yi Yeow; Gerald Yau Min Tan; Yew Lam Chong
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-04-20

3.  The impact of resident involvement in minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures.

Authors:  Nedim Ruhotina; Julien Dagenais; Giorgio Gandaglia; Akshay Sood; Firas Abdollah; Steven L Chang; Jeffrey J Leow; Kola Olugbade; Arun Rai; Jesse D Sammon; Marianne Schmid; Briony Varda; Kevin C Zorn; Mani Menon; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  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

5.  Effectiveness of postgraduate training for learning extraperitoneal access for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  John W Davis; Mary Achim; Mark Munsell; Surena Matin
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-07-11       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  General surgery training and robotics: Are residents improving their skills?

Authors:  Brendan M Finnerty; Cheguevara Afaneh; Anna Aronova; Thomas J Fahey; Rasa Zarnegar
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  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

8.  Impact of trainee involvement with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Anil A Thomas; Armen Derboghossians; Allen Chang; Rajiv Karia; David S Finley; Jeff Slezak; Steven J Jacobsen; Gary W Chien
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-10-10

Review 9.  Comparative effectiveness of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Rodrigo Rodrigues Pessoa; Paul Maroni; Janet Kukreja; Simon P Kim
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

10.  Realistic anatomical prostate models for surgical skills workshops using ballistic gelatin for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy and fruit for simple prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Uri Lindner; Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2011-02-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.