Literature DB >> 20067454

Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years.

Nicolas Doumerc1, Carlo Yuen, Richard Savdie, M Bayzidur Rahman, Kris K Rasiah, Ruth Pe Benito, Warick Delprado, Jayne Matthews, Anne-Maree Haynes, Phillip D Stricker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To critically analyse the learning curve for one experienced open surgeon converting to robotic surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From February 2006 to December 2008, 502 patients had retropubic RP (RRP) while concurrently 212 had robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP) by one urologist. We prospectively compared the baseline patient and tumour characteristics, variables during and after RP, histopathological features and early urinary functional outcomes in the two groups.
RESULTS: The patients in both groups were similar in age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, and prostatic volume. However, there were more high-stage (T2b and T3, P = 0.02) and -grade (Gleason 9, P = 0.01) tumours in the RRP group. The mean (range) operative duration was 147 (75-330) min for RRP and 192 (119-525) min for RALP (P < 0.001); 110 cases were required to achieve '3-h proficiency'. Major complication rates were 1.8% and 0.8% for RALP and RRP, respectively. The overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 21.2% in the RALP and 16.7% in the RRP group (P = 0.18). PSM rates for pT2 were comparable (11.6% vs 10.1%, P = 0.74). pT3 PSM rates were higher for RALP than RRP (40.5% vs 28.8%, P = 0.004). The learning curve started to plateau in the overall PSM rate after 150 cases. For the pT2 and pT3 PSM rates, the learning curve tended to flatten after 140 and 170 cases, respectively. The early continence rates were comparable (P = 0.07) but showed a statistically significant improvement after 200 cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the learning curve has shown that certain components of the curve for an experienced open surgeon transferring skills to the robotic platform take different times. We suggest that patient selection is guided by these milestones, to maximize oncological outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20067454     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09158.x

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


  26 in total

1.  Homemade laparoscopic surgical simulator: a cost-effective solution to the challenge of acquiring laparoscopic skills?

Authors:  A Aslam; G J Nason; S K Giri
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Dae-Seon Yoo; Cheryn Song; Sahyun Park; Sejun Park; Seong Cheol Kim; Yongmee Cho; Hanjong Ahn
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Surgical Management of Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer with Review of Literature and Evolving Evidence.

Authors:  Ahmed Saeed Goolam; Alfredo Harb-De la Rosa; Murugesan Manoharan
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-01-13

4.  A systematic review of the learning curve in robotic surgery: range and heterogeneity.

Authors:  I Kassite; T Bejan-Angoulvant; H Lardy; A Binet
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Surgical margin status among men with organ-confined (pT2) prostate cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Andrew Evans; John Srigley; Joseph L Chin; Bish Bora; Amber Hunter; Robin McLeod; Neil E Fleshner
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  A novel method of bladder neck imbrication to improve early urinary continence following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  K Beattie; J Symons; S Chopra; C Yuen; R Savdie; R Thanigasalam; A M Haynes; J Matthews; P C Brenner; K Rasiah; R L Sutherland; P D Stricker
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-07-26

Review 7.  Robotic surgery: review of the latest advances, risks, and outcomes.

Authors:  Mary Downes Gastrich; Joseph Barone; Gloria Bachmann; Mark Anderson; Adrian Balica
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-01-21

8.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience.

Authors:  Renato Almeida Rosa de Oliveira; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Thiago Camelo Mourão; Ricardo de Lima Favaretto; Thiago Borges Marques Santana; Ademar Lopes; Stenio de Cassio Zequi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-08

Review 9.  Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

Authors:  Abbas Basiri; Jean Jmch de la Rosette; Shahin Tabatabaei; Henry H Woo; M Pilar Laguna; Hamidreza Shemshaki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Predictors of positive surgical margins at open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon series.

Authors:  Mahesha Weerakoon; Shomik Sengupta; Kapil Sethi; Joseph Ischia; David R Webb
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-09-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.