Literature DB >> 24917775

Developing a robotic prostatectomy service and a robotic fellowship programme - defining the learning curve.

Nikhil Vasdev1, Conrad Bishop1, Atoine Kass-Iliyya1, Sami Hamid2, Thomas A McNicholas1, Venkat Prasad2, Gowrie Mohan-S2, Timothy Lane1, Gregory Boustead1, James M Adshead1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is an established treatment for prostate cancer in selected centres with appropriate expertise. We studied our single-centre experience of developing a RRP service and subsequent training of 2 additional surgeons by the initial surgeon and the introduction of United Kingdom's first nationally accredited robotic fellowship training programme. We assessed the learning curve of the 3 surgeons with regard to peri-operative outcomes and oncological results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred consecutive patients underwent RRP between November 2008 and August 2012. Patients were divided into 3 equal groups (Group 1, case 1-100; Group 2, case 101-200; and Group 3, case 201-300). Age, ASA score, preoperative co-morbidities and indications for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were comparable for all 3 patient groups. Peri-operative and oncological outcomes were compared across all 3 groups to assess the impact of the learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. All surgical complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo system.
RESULTS: The mean age was 60.7 years (range 41-74). There was a significant reduction in the mean console time (p < 0.001), operating time (p < 0.001), mean length of hospital stay (p < 0.001) and duration of catheter (p < 0.001) between the 3 groups as the series progressed. The two most important factors predictive of positive surgical margins (PSM) at RRP were the initial prostate specific antigen (PSA) and tumor stage at diagnosis. The overall PSM rate was 26.7%. For T2/T3 tumors the incidence of PSM reduced as the series progressed (Group 1-22%, Group 2-32% and Group 3-26%). The incidence of major complications i.e. grade Clavien-Dindo system score ≤ III was 2% (6/300).
CONCLUSION: RRP is a safe procedure with low morbidity. As surgeons progress through the learning curve peri-operative parameters and oncological outcomes improve. This learning curve is not affected by the introduction of a fellowship-training programme. Using a carefully structured mentored approach, RRP can be safely introduced as a new procedure without compromising patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fellowship training; Learning curve; Prostate cancer; Robotic radical prostatectomy

Year:  2014        PMID: 24917775      PMCID: PMC4024507          DOI: 10.1159/000356266

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Urol        ISSN: 1661-7649


  24 in total

1.  Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  J Binder; W Kramer
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Single-layer anatomical reconstruction of the vesico-urethral anastomosis during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).

Authors:  Shomik Sengupta; Joseph Ischia; David R Webb
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  The increased rate of prostate specific antigen testing has not affected prostate cancer presentation in an inner city population in the UK.

Authors:  Moeketsi Mokete; David C Shackley; Christopher D Betts; Kieran J O'Flynn; Noel W Clarke
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position.

Authors:  S V N Phong; L K D Koh
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.669

Review 5.  Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  M Han; A W Partin; C R Pound; J I Epstein; P C Walsh
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.241

6.  Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Vipul R Patel; Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman; Rafael F Coelho; Sanket Chauhan; Kenneth J Palmer; Marcelo A Orvieto; Ignacio Camacho; Geoff Coughlin; Bernardo Rocco
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-01-25       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: first 100 patients with one year of follow-up.

Authors:  Albert A Mikhail; Marcelo A Orvieto; Ehab S Billatos; Kevin C Zorn; Edward M Gong; Charles B Brendler; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Robotic radical prostatectomy learning curve of a fellowship-trained laparoscopic surgeon.

Authors:  Kevin C Zorn; Marcelo A Orvieto; Edward M Gong; Albert A Mikhail; Ofer N Gofrit; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution.

Authors:  A Tewari; A Srivasatava; M Menon
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 10.  Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  C Ramsay; R Pickard; C Robertson; A Close; L Vale; N Armstrong; D A Barocas; C G Eden; C Fraser; T Gurung; D Jenkinson; X Jia; T B Lam; G Mowatt; D E Neal; M C Robinson; J Royle; S P Rushton; P Sharma; M D F Shirley; N Soomro
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 4.014

View more
  6 in total

1.  Intraoperative Frozen Section of the Prostate Reduces the Risk of Positive Margin Whilst Ensuring Nerve Sparing in Patients with Intermediate and High-Risk Prostate Cancer Undergoing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: First Reported UK Series.

Authors:  Nikhil Vasdev; Samita Agarwal; Bhavan P Rai; Arany Soosainathan; Gregory Shaw; Sebastian Chang; Venkat Prasad; Gowrie Mohan-S; James M Adshead
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2016-05-20

Review 2.  Learning Curves for Robotic Surgery: a Review of the Recent Literature.

Authors:  Giorgio Mazzon; Ashwin Sridhar; Gerald Busuttil; James Thompson; Senthil Nathan; Tim Briggs; John Kelly; Greg Shaw
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09-23       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Prevalence of haptic feedback in robot-mediated surgery: a systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Farshid Amirabdollahian; Salvatore Livatino; Behrad Vahedi; Radhika Gudipati; Patrick Sheen; Shan Gawrie-Mohan; Nikhil Vasdev
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-12-01

Review 4.  Learning curves in laparoscopic and robot-assisted prostate surgery: a systematic search and review.

Authors:  Nikolaos Grivas; Ioannis Zachos; Georgios Georgiadis; Markos Karavitakis; Vasilis Tzortzis; Charalampos Mamoulakis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-09-04       Impact factor: 3.661

Review 5.  Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.

Authors:  Kun Tang; Kehua Jiang; Hongbo Chen; Zhiqiang Chen; Hua Xu; Zhangqun Ye
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-09

6.  A comparison of operative and margin outcomes from surgeon learning curves in robot assisted radical prostatectomy in a changing referral practice.

Authors:  A Jaulim; A Srinivasan; S Hori; N Kumar; A Y Warren; N C Shah; V J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 1.891

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.