Oliver Brunckhorst1, Kamran Ahmed2, Osayuki Nehikhare1, Giancarlo Marra1, Ben Challacombe1, Richard Popert1. 1. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom. 2. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom; Department of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: kamran.ahmed@kcl.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess and quantify the surgical learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) of a single surgeon. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 253 consecutive cases performed by the same surgeon from 2006 to 2013 was conducted. Primary outcomes included enucleation ratio and morcellation efficiencies and complication rates. Three-month postoperative prostate-specific antigen values were used as secondary measures. Cases were divided into cohorts of 20 cases to assess changes in means analyzed through Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests. Scatter plots of cases with a best-fit line were drawn to analyze the learning curve. RESULTS: The mean age of patients across the cases was 69.21 years with an average transrectal ultrasound prostate volume of 95.84 cc. Enucleation ratio efficiency was significantly different between cohorts (P = .02) plateau after 50-60 cases conducted. Similarly, a significant difference is shown for morcellation efficiency (P = .01) with stabilization in performance after 60 cases. Complication rates decreased through the caseload but did not show a statistical difference (P = .62) or plateauing on the graph. Finally, no difference between 3-month postoperative prostate-specific antigen values was seen (P = .083); however, a learning curve of 50 cases was observed graphically. CONCLUSION: Within our single-surgeon cohort, we experienced a learning curve of 40-60 cases for the HoLEP procedure. Large variability in performance late into the caseload demonstrates the technical difficulty of HoLEP. Owing to this, adjuncts to training such as simulation-based training may be of use for the new surgeon to shorten the initial phase of learning.
OBJECTIVE: To assess and quantify the surgical learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) of a single surgeon. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 253 consecutive cases performed by the same surgeon from 2006 to 2013 was conducted. Primary outcomes included enucleation ratio and morcellation efficiencies and complication rates. Three-month postoperative prostate-specific antigen values were used as secondary measures. Cases were divided into cohorts of 20 cases to assess changes in means analyzed through Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests. Scatter plots of cases with a best-fit line were drawn to analyze the learning curve. RESULTS: The mean age of patients across the cases was 69.21 years with an average transrectal ultrasound prostate volume of 95.84 cc. Enucleation ratio efficiency was significantly different between cohorts (P = .02) plateau after 50-60 cases conducted. Similarly, a significant difference is shown for morcellation efficiency (P = .01) with stabilization in performance after 60 cases. Complication rates decreased through the caseload but did not show a statistical difference (P = .62) or plateauing on the graph. Finally, no difference between 3-month postoperative prostate-specific antigen values was seen (P = .083); however, a learning curve of 50 cases was observed graphically. CONCLUSION: Within our single-surgeon cohort, we experienced a learning curve of 40-60 cases for the HoLEP procedure. Large variability in performance late into the caseload demonstrates the technical difficulty of HoLEP. Owing to this, adjuncts to training such as simulation-based training may be of use for the new surgeon to shorten the initial phase of learning.
Authors: P- M Patard; M Roumiguie; S Sanson; J- B Beauval; E Huyghe; M Soulié; B Malavaud; X Gamé; P Rischmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Dmitry Enikeev; Andrey Morozov; Mark Taratkin; Vincent Misrai; Enrique Rijo; Alexei Podoinitsin; Svetlana Gabdullina; Thomas R W Herrmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Benoit Peyronnet; Grégoire Robert; Vincent Comat; Morgan Rouprêt; Fernando Gomez-Sancha; Jean-Nicolas Cornu; Vincent Misrai Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Bernd Rosenhammer; Maximilian Schönhärl; Roman Mayr; Marco J Schnabel; Maximilian Burger; Christian Eichelberg Journal: Urol Int Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Iman Sadri; Adel Arezki; Félix Couture; David-Dan Nguyen; Russell Schwartz; Ahmed S Zakaria; Dean Elterman; Enrique Rijo; Vincent Misrai; Thorsten Bach; Claus G Roehrborn; Kevin C Zorn Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.226