Nedim Ruhotina1, Julien Dagenais1, Giorgio Gandaglia2, Akshay Sood3, Firas Abdollah4, Steven L Chang5, Jeffrey J Leow6, Kola Olugbade1, Arun Rai1, Jesse D Sammon3, Marianne Schmid6, Briony Varda1, Kevin C Zorn2, Mani Menon4, Adam S Kibel1, Quoc-Dien Trinh5. 1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; 2. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC; 3. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; ; Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI. 4. Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI. 5. Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; ; Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; 6. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA;
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Robotic and laparoscopic surgical training is an integral part of resident education in urology, yet the effect of resident involvement on outcomes of minimally-invasive urologic procedures remains largely unknown. We assess the impact of resident participation on surgical outcomes using a large multi-institutional prospective database. METHODS: Relying on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant User Files (2005-2011), we abstracted the 3 most frequently performed minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. These included radical prostatectomy, radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess the impact of trainee involvement (PGY 1-2: junior, PGY 3-4: senior, PGY ≥5: chief) versus attending-only on operative time, length-of-stay, 30-day complication, reoperation and readmission rates. RESULTS: A total of 5459 minimally-invasive radical prostatectomies, 1740 minimally-invasive radical nephrectomies and 786 minimally-invasive partial nephrectomies were performed during the study period, for which data on resident surgeon involvement was available. In multivariable analyses, resident involvement was not associated with increased odds of overall complications, reoperation, or readmission rates for minimally-invasive prostatectomy, radical and partial nephrectomy. However, operative time was prolonged when residents were involved irrespective of the type of procedure. Length-of-stay was decreased with senior resident involvement in minimally-invasive partial nephrectomies (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, p = 0.04) and prostatectomies (OR 0.68, p = 0.01). The major limitations of this study include its retrospective observational design, inability to adjust for the case complexity and surgeon/hospital characteristics, and the lack of information regarding the minimally-invasive approach utilized (whether robotic or laparoscopic). CONCLUSIONS: Resident involvement is associated with increased operative time in minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. However, it does not adversely affect the complication, reoperation or readmission rates, as well as length-of-stay.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic and laparoscopic surgical training is an integral part of resident education in urology, yet the effect of resident involvement on outcomes of minimally-invasive urologic procedures remains largely unknown. We assess the impact of resident participation on surgical outcomes using a large multi-institutional prospective database. METHODS: Relying on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant User Files (2005-2011), we abstracted the 3 most frequently performed minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. These included radical prostatectomy, radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess the impact of trainee involvement (PGY 1-2: junior, PGY 3-4: senior, PGY ≥5: chief) versus attending-only on operative time, length-of-stay, 30-day complication, reoperation and readmission rates. RESULTS: A total of 5459 minimally-invasive radical prostatectomies, 1740 minimally-invasive radical nephrectomies and 786 minimally-invasive partial nephrectomies were performed during the study period, for which data on resident surgeon involvement was available. In multivariable analyses, resident involvement was not associated with increased odds of overall complications, reoperation, or readmission rates for minimally-invasive prostatectomy, radical and partial nephrectomy. However, operative time was prolonged when residents were involved irrespective of the type of procedure. Length-of-stay was decreased with senior resident involvement in minimally-invasive partial nephrectomies (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, p = 0.04) and prostatectomies (OR 0.68, p = 0.01). The major limitations of this study include its retrospective observational design, inability to adjust for the case complexity and surgeon/hospital characteristics, and the lack of information regarding the minimally-invasive approach utilized (whether robotic or laparoscopic). CONCLUSIONS: Resident involvement is associated with increased operative time in minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. However, it does not adversely affect the complication, reoperation or readmission rates, as well as length-of-stay.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Samer G Mattar; Adnan A Alseidi; Daniel B Jones; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Lee L Swanstrom; Ralph W Aye; Steven D Wexner; José M Martinez; Sharona B Ross; Michael M Awad; Morris E Franklin; Maurice E Arregui; Bruce D Schirmer; Rebecca M Minter Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Warren H Tseng; Leah Jin; Robert J Canter; Steve R Martinez; Vijay P Khatri; Jeffrey Gauvin; Richard J Bold; David Wisner; Sandra Taylor; Steven L Chen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: David A Duchene; Felipe Rosso; Ralph Clayman; Elspeth M McDougall; Howard N Winfield Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Anders Bjartell; Stephen J Freedland; Brent K Hollenbeck; Jim C Hu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Maxine Sun; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Brian R Lane; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Amr Fergany; Igor Frank; Inderbir S Gill; Michael L Blute; Steven C Campbell Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kamal M F Itani; Ralph G DePalma; Tracy Schifftner; Karen M Sanders; Barbara K Chang; William G Henderson; Shukri F Khuri Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Aaron M Potretzke; Brent A Knight; John A Brockman; Joel Vetter; Robert S Figenshau; Sam B Bhayani; Brian M Benway Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2016-04-02
Authors: Blayne Welk; Jennifer Winick-Ng; Andrew McClure; Chris Vinden; Sumit Dave; Stephen Pautler Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Philip Zeuschner; Irmengard Meyer; Stefan Siemer; Michael Stoeckle; Gudrun Wagenpfeil; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Matthias Saar; Martin Janssen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 5.344